vey 
THANE ee 
ΝΥΝ 


ἮΝ δ Rees 


ΝΥΝ 
ΤΉΝ 


“At 


STAN tena, 


λας Ἂς lheten ey 


Mate Ay 
WET ae a 


MP Myte mind 
VAS eG 


vay 


IMO RPA AIR aia Ran atgls Sreeery 
AOI Lye ὍΝ MOD τάνδ ΝΑ Ἀ δῆ μη ας seks woe 
ΠΣ) pa ftesmachet As ρα νὴ aca reyes δύνατ ny 
ao MINT ΑδΑ ἀρῆς γερὸ MAW ΡΥ Ag iy at ΩΝ Mens, 
PPR OER Sa amt ray RING Ait, Maes κα Bi Fiesta ee eATL 5A, ἘΜ 
FO Vay «τ δέν, R ery 
ΑΝ Sar sent ΤΕΝ 


PAN σε τὸ 
"καλὴ Ὁ 


fo 
IME Agathe se 
MAMMA tO 
Vo Mates 


ΠΣ aeavepaD 
τὴν ἄνα ἡ 
“Μέτ δὴ we git 


EMR ἣν 
BAHAI S uma wren 


ESAT etn gS 
Hay Ue 
Ped Gaerne 
Ὡς Μη 
PANS CONS AT τα λυ CORO Sr iLay Srariers 
BEV saNey VE 


FATR NNN GA 

Aiba r ee Naas Vote 

ad PAM UMEN λιν τη ρα εν ten Arann 
Naaaqine INS Cerne gs ORO εν hea ne 

ὃ ve WU Sa aga’ 

tne gas ng 


ϑηχέδῳ 
eA Ae Aa Anas 
Sake 


POMAININTVE SAME ἦν 
Sata δε 
το Where 


HEANOR Dye seta Ἢ 
aetna στὴ ΟΜ 
ΝΣ 
VEN 


Maar tem ceas 
CSE yy 
REALL RULE 
a 


- ἃ, .,χ ἄς 


τὶ 
MUN ου αὐτοῖν ἐν 
ΠΟ ΉΥΝ ἀμ ἈΎΗν 
REG AMO νον Fe ana SY erm seam eoah yet 
MCN ATTAINS” gama νὰ ΤῊ Va beneng ay 
ΧΟΡ Ε pares 
Valo SMA MA sALAAGA Bey ΟΕ Ny ty 
Wary, ΚΣ ΤΟΥΣ Υ Ἢ 
᾿ 


ἦν Myer, 


Sow 


! : MAR thihy torenie 
UNDE NEN yA aah oe Uetvee ἀπαδι αν 
a Mek τα VERE TAN Gey ΟΝ a 
VP ands ange hey Aahgig. a eal δ δεινήν, eC HP 
FAM Raine spay ΠῚ a Ὑ Δ Ἃ Τα πὴ Le Mt δ λα, ἀκ pana, 
[Ὁ a ory Se EIE Le ime a fy "hs eh ord SOAK 

ἢ } MEIN HW Fmd ON hy yg MIATA Ge 
ν NRE, san Ἢ 


ΠΕΣ 
wR Mr aay 
Nea, 


Ad inch ig 


ΠΌΣΟ ΡΝ] 
WA ὑΑγών ἀγα ἢ δα ΜΉ ΔῊ foe 


ΛΝ eer 


ἢ Oe 
EES Met Me eee, TENG αὐ γεν ταν, ἌΓ γέλων 
ieee ψ' ιν Ὁ MNES δον ἡ δεν. ath “ΟΕ 
UNCLE ATS ag ta AEM EAR δεδυδινα νεῖν, βαρύν τῷ δ A Slagi,y 
ΕΔ ὁ εν Σαρα ἐπ ΑΨ ΡΑΥΝ tie AERIS YD 
HANAES ἀρ να ΣΝ ἤν Δ 21) 


shane 
Nocera 


NEMAsO IY Hava ay 


ΣΤ ARID None 
ΠΤ) 


ΝΙΝ 
ἦν τλν να 


ΠΟΤῚ 


SMALE a δ μς ΔΔη 
er Ag MNO Ei he ἀντ δὴ Fae γνάναν ἐς εν ΠΝ ΜΗ 
“ΨΑνβνλλλάι, tat eel san “εὐ VE A .Ν ove 
τὰ ἔκ μιν WANE hg MCC AV elo 
OF ONM SAI ope he Word 43) hat se ἡ κασαν 
set 
Banas 


IATL eng y 
ΣΉΜ 
WIAUINTACRONGAY τηνι ἢ ἢ 

LNATAEMAS aod νενν ἵ ἢ 
Mata Δ Man tags 
WATT ΎΡΎΝΗ 
ὁ καὶ 


ary 
TOP thw 


Wye 


HVS Tea hea 
SA ety ay 
Sere tr Yi 


᾿ 
NMETV Ὧν 
ΜΡ 


ENVIR ἐἤμα κοην! 
ΡΝ ἊΝ 
ΣΟ ΥΥΕΝῚ ἀφδεῖνν 
PEE ela mead 
erry gates 
ἘΣ ΤΥ 
Sale Typ 5 


VERA τὰν 
ΠΣ 


Ὁ 
ΣῊΝ 
A MN 


ΔΎ ΜΕΝΟΝ meas 
Webs νι, 


ΠΟΎΣ 
ΠΝ 


τἰκελίλος 
Sree i 
ταν 


setae 


Sonar) 


ΗΝ 
HAMA Sh, 
ΠΝ ΝῚ 


2 τὰ 
Dear ener 


ΟΝ 
ΠΝ 
Coreen 
eT ως ἐν Ν 9) 
« 
γα τ)» 
ee Peart ΉΤΗ 
weg ΠΝ 
57 seve 
BRO EM I γαψε oh 
Wha Mut ὙΠΉΉῊΝ 
ΠΤ 
oem ayy 
HUTTE ME EC pane νι 
ΝΗ 
PUMP OT every ον ΑΝ 
BNO eb ae 
“NONDIAD G0 Eta ἐγ it 
We ted R Nem iusems yer ape gun ates 
ΠΝ ἘΣ τε φρτα κα χλια θα τ μ τιν 
νὴ ν  ΒῚ “Ἀκνσλῆων γα νὰν νιν τ, 
ΔῈ I9UH eae: γα ἡ, BLE τὴν χη φομαι EUSA Sas 
ΠΝ PEM gute pe 
car os MCU μον τη πα τὰ 
9" 8, Watery daynrery 
PAR eet αὐ 
WAPATO on TaNaIN oe 
2s ny 
MONI tae pew 
ΠΥΡᾺ Ασα γα LY DOES Ia) STE 
Ἢ arr 
PREAVEMA LIV ERMCUTET a yay ry sig ΤΟΥ 
ΠΝ AMMO DID teeta gate tg 
SPEDE ΣΟΥ 
AEUICEUEZ pags, 


Pd erga ge 
POUT state ga 


ΠῚ 
ἀφῶ εκ ἐκ αν" 
CO ion 
ee er er 


ste yes 
ΠΡ 
ΓΟ eee footy 
Yaad ety 
EIN Ryo 


ee αν 
ΠΥ Ἢ 
ὅταν 


Mem τ ταν εν 
τὰ φατε 
are ΦῈ 4 Δ πεν.» 


Runa να Ree 
Geary 

OIE ees ne 
ΠῚ 


ΔῊ beettes 
ΠΗ 


’ 
ae 


er Ea iy 
NNSA ANE ΗΠ] SVE “ἀνα φε eee VEE τ πη» 
ΣΎΝ, ΔῊ ΝΣ 
ΠΡ ΚΉΝ 
te 


S124 baie ge 
82° PMN Senor tue 
e¢yeae 


(Wee gaye 
PNB tangs PPR εκ 
γε ϑφόγανιπι 
Mate THOME mE NENA } 
ta δ ρα ναδανη μεν 5 προ ἢ CURE TY 
UN bee 


fe age y 
WEAN re ray dene 
Dadra gsi ys en 
ΓΝ 
ΡΝ, 


πα εἶν we soins, 
ΠΝ 
PAH eas 
Woke fot 


WAVER Coy 


Ve heg ny 
His eden y 


terete. 
ὲ 


¥ Sherrer? 
toprpvae 
Lasse 


“ae 


των wea tS, 


utara 
ΠΥ gem 
ΠΟΤ 


ἊΝ γε etd 
doesnt cag ἔν 
ΠΗ 


v 
Perro re ety 
“929 


eae ἦν tesa! 
75 WE 42% 
ἘἸπα τῆ. "is 8 ste 9 
Shaun mai, 
Mirae 
MMS eR Ere 
SE REE 
ΦΗΣΙ 


ΤῊ 
TEN τὴς ἢν eee ἂν 
he Roda ak PATENTS 
Sys eae 


ye 


Ar 


! 
Ἰ 
Ἱ 
il 
i i 
Ἰ 
ἢ 
ry sl 
Lo ary 
i 
mh 
1 
αι 


The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel 


AND OTHER 


Ser blCAL ESSAYS 


SELECTED FROM THE PUBLISHED PAPERS 
OF THE LATE 


EZRA ABBOT 


BOSTON 
GEO. H. ELLIS, 141 FRANKLIN STREET 
1888 


‘COPYRIGHT 


BY GEO. H. ELLIS. 


TOE ap 


Press of Geo. H. Ellis, 141 Franklin Street. 


Ezra ΑΒΒΟΊ, eldest child of Ezra and Phebe (Abbot) Abbot, was 
born in Jackson, Waldo County, Maine, April 28, 1819; was fitted for 
college at Phillips (Exeter) Academy; graduated at Bowdoin College in 
1840, and received its degree of A.M. in 1843; removed to Cambridge 
in 1847; after some time spent in teaching, in pursuing private studies, 
and in rendering service in the libraries of Harvard College and the 
Boston Athenzum, was appointed in 1856 Assistant Librarian of Har- 
vard College; and in 1872 Bussey Professor of New Testament Criti- 
cism and Interpretation in the Divinity School. 

He was elected in 1852 a member of the American Oriental Society, 
and from 1853 its Recording Secretary; in 1861, a member of the 
American Academy of Arts and Sciences; in 1871 appointed University 
Lecturer on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament; in the same 
year chosen a member of the New Testament Company for the revision 
of our English Bible. He was also a member of the Society of Biblical 
Literature and Exegesis, and of the Harvard Biblical Club. 

In 1861, he received from Harvard College the honorary degree of 
A.M.; in 1869 that of LL.D. from Yale College, and the same from 
Bowdoin College in 1878; in 1872 from Harvard College that of S.T.D.; 
and he was tendered the degree of D.D. by the University of Edin- 
burgh at its recent tercentenary, but passed away before the date of the 
celebration. 

He died at his home in Cambridge at 5.30 p.m., on Friday, March 
21, 1884. 


ALS A 
ΝΜ 


ἐν 
ae 


ἐφ 
ἐγ 


ΠΝ 


ΒΕ ΕΑ ΟΣ 


THE present volume is issued in compliance with suggestions 
coming from both sides of the Atlantic. Several of the essays it 
contains appeared originally in publications not easily accessible, 
yet embody results of the highest value to students of the New 
Testament, whether in its textual or its historical aspects. Some 
of them will be found to have received from the author, since their 
first appearance, not a few minute perfecting touches, character- 
istic of his punctilious and vigilant scholarship. In reading them, 
it is important to note the date of composition (given at the 
beginning of each), since it has not been found practicable always 
to mention such supplementary or qualifying facts as the progress 
of time has brought. Indeed, by far the larger portion of the 
present volume was printed nearly two years ago ; and its publica- 
tion has been delayed by causes over which the editor has had 
little control. The chief infelicitous result of the delay, however, 
appears in the fact that one or two additions — made somewhat 
inconsistently, it must be confessed — have come in their turn 
to need supplementing (see, for example, p. 166, note). All the 
editor’s annotations have been carefully distinguished from the 
work of the author by being enclosed in square brackets ; but it 
should be observed that matter thus enclosed in the midst of 
quotations or translations is from the pen of Dr. Abbot himself. 

Besides the elaborate discussions of debatable textual questions, 
which render the volume indispensable to the professional student, 
room has been found for a few of those papers in which Dr. Abbot 
addresses general readers in a style alike lucid, attractive, and 
authoritative. But, after all, to those privileged to know the 
variety and extent of his learning, the retentiveness and accuracy 


4 PREFACE 


of his memory, the penetration and fairness of his judgment, this 
volume will seem but an inadequate and fragmentary memorial. 

The compass and special character of the essay upon the Fourth 
Gospel have made the editor glad to avail himself of the separate 
index to that part of the book courteously placed at his disposal by 
Professor Huidekoper, of Meadville. This index, accordingly, is 
not incorporated with that at the end of the volume. 

In conclusion, special thanks are due, and are here publicly 
given, to the several editors or proprietors of the publications in 
which the essays were first printed, for the kind permission to 


reproduce them in their present form. 
J. H. THAYER. 


CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS, 
July, 1888. 


ΧΙ. 
> 


CONTENTS. 


Pacz. 
ΠΗ ἈΠΟ HORSHIPTOn nny HOURTEH «GOSPEL, Wl la) eile) 6 9 
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN αἰτέω AND épotdw,. . . . . . 107 


ANCIENT PAPYRUS AND THE MODE OF MAKING PAPER FROM IT, 137 


THE COMPARATIVE ANTIQUITY OF THE SINAITIC AND VATICAN 


MANUSCRIPTS OB DHE (GREUK -BIBEE 4 tales alee us Ὁ 
DHE SLATE JEROBESSOR. DISCHENDORE, τς i lsdteieue aloe. τ 
UE) DATES CT REGELEES;, ὁ αν yi Je 1a? dW pea Lee ZS 
GCERHARDRVONS ΙΑ ΤΕ ΗΝ “2G i). Ia) allie Εν ΝΠ 181 
BUTEMANN Sp GREEKS ΠΞΕΒΤ ΑΜΕΝΤ 2.6 sel tags ch pan  188 


WeEstcoTT AND Hort’s EDITION OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT, 197 


Shes INE We LESTA MEN Is GR ke iret elke πὰ UR eae ny 2O4! 
THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION (three articles), . . . 215 
THE READING “ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD,” IN JOHN i. 18,. . . 241 


THE READING “AN ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD,” OR “GOD ONLY- 


BREGOTRENG © JOHN jes UO; oe amen os. hoe toy da ice 33. Gh) Jos oh ee 
(RE IE SORN OR, ΤΟΝ ἐπ πὶ JAAN Wika Watters | sone) At! cl iwetebes yaaa 200 
Tabs READING “CHURCH OF GOD, (7NGMS ΣΧ 2). τ an) sere) 1204. 
Miike CONSERUCTION OF ROMANS xen Suan πὰ dsb ist wl tains) tiene 332 
RECENT EDISCUSSIONS) OR ROMANS δ τ: 92) uae wg) εν ALL 
TRETWE) το ἘΚ Rn Gy οὐ See Ὁ Jia ABS 
1 JOHN vV. 7, AND LUTHER’S GERMAN BIBLE, . ... . . 458 


THE VERSE-DIVISIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT,. . . . . 464 


Lise al st εν 
ν ΤΑΙ λοὶ 
ἌΝ νὴ ; 


λα} 


αν ΕΛ 
reek) Sa να 
ζ ie Pas A 


PREFATORY NOTE TO THE FIRST ESSAY. 


THE following essay was read, in part, before the “ Ministers’ Insti- 
tute,” at its public meeting last October, in Providence, R.I. In con- 
sidering the external evidences of the genuineness of the Gospel as- 
cribed to John, it was out of the question, under the circumstances, to 
undertake anything more than the discussion of a few important points; 
and even these could not be properly treated within the time allowed. 

In revising the paper for the Unztartan Review (February, March, 
June, 1880), and, with additions and corrections, for the volume of “ In 
stitute Essays,’ I have greatly enlarged some parts of it, particularly 
that relating to the evidence that the Fourth Gospel was used by Justin 
Martyr. The consideration of his quotations and of the hypotheses con- 
nected with them has given occasion to the long Notes appended to the 
essay, in which willybe found the results of some original investigation. 
But the circumstances under which the essay is printed have compelled 
me to treat other parts of the evidence for the genuineness of this 
Gospel less thoroughly than I wished, and on certain points to content 
myself with mere references. It has also been necessary to give ina 
translation many quotations which scholars would have preferred to see 
in the original; but the translation has been made as literal as the Eng- 
lish idiom would permit, and precise references to the passages cited are 


always given for the benefit of the critical student. 
Ἰθ μὰς 


CAMBRIDGE, ΜΑ55., May 21, 1880. 


Ltt 


2 ee 


i 


τ τ ΠΟΙ ΞΡ OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL: 
BXTERNAL, EVIDENCES. 


THE problem of the Fourth Gospel— that is, the question of 
its authorship and historical value —requires for its complete 
solution a consideration of many collateral questions which 
are still in debate. Until these are gradually disposed of by 
thorough investigation and discussion, we can hardly hope 
for a general agreement on the main question at issue. 
Such an agreement among scholars certainly does not at 
present exist. Since the “epoch-making”’ essay (to borrow 
a favorite phrase of the Germans) of Ferdinand Christian 
Baur, in the Theologische Jahrbiicher for 1844, there has 
indeed been much shifting of ground on the part of the 
opponents of the genuineness of the Gospel; but among schol- 
ars of equal learning and ability, as Hilgenfeld, Keim, Schol- 
ten, Hausrath, Renan, on the one hand, and Godet, Beyschlag, 
Luthardt, Weiss, Lightfoot, on the other, opinions are yet 
divided, with a tendency, at least in Germany, toward the 
denial of its genuineness. Still, some of these collateral 
questions of which I have spoken seem to be approaching a 
settlement. I may notice first one of the most important, 
the question whether the relation of the Apostie John to 
Jewish Christianity was not such that it is impossible to 
suppose the Fourth Gospel to have proceeded from him, 
even at a late period of his life. This is a fundamental 
postulate of the theory of the Tiibingen School, in regard to 


10 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


the opposition of Paul to the three great Apostles, Peter, 
James, and John. The Apostle John, they say, wrote the 
Apocalypse, the most Jewish of all the books of the New 
Testament; but he could not have written the anti-Judaic 
Gospel. Recognizing most fully the great service which 
Baur and his followers have rendered to the history of primi- 
tive Christianity by their bold and searching investigations, 
I think it may be said that there is a wide-spread and deep- 
ening conviction among fair-minded scholars that the theory 
of the Tiibingen School, in the form in which it has been 
presented by the coryphezei of the party, as Baur, Schwegler, 
Zeller, is an extreme view, resting largely on a false interpre- 
tation of many passages of the New Testament, and a false 
view of many early Christian writings. Matthew Arnold’s 
protest against the excessive “vigour and rigour” of the 
Tubingen theories brings a good deal of plain English com- 
mon-sense to bear on the subject, and exposes well some of 
the extravagances of Baur and others.* Still more weight is 
to be attached to the emphatic dissent of such an able and 
thoroughly independent scholar as Dr. James Donaldson, the 
author of the Critical History of Christian Literature and 
Doctrine, a work unhappily unfinished. But very significant 
is the remarkable article of Keim on the Apostolic Council 
at Jerusalem, in his latest work, Aus dem Urchristenthum 
(“Studies in the History of Early Christianity”), published 
in 1878, a short time before his lamented death. In this 
able essay, he demolishes the foundation of the Tibingen 
theory, vindicating in the main the historical character of 
the account in the Acts, and exposing the misinterpretation 
of the passage in the Epistle to the Galatians, on which Baur 
and his followers found their view of the absolute contradic- 
tion between the Acts and the Epistle. Holtzmann, Lipsius, 
Pfleiderer, and especially Weizsicker had already gone far in 
modifying the extreme view of Baur; but this essay of Keim’s 
is are-examination of the whole question with reference to 
all the recent discussions. The still later work of Schenkel, 


* See his God and the Bible, Preface, and chaps. v.. vi- 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL II 


published during the present year (1879), Das Christusbild 
der Apostel und der nachapostolischen Zeit (“The Picture of 
Christ presented by the Apostles and by the Post-Apostolic 
Time”), is another conspicuous example of the same reac- 
tion. Schenkel remarks in the Preface to this volume : — 


Having never been able to convince myself of the sheer opposition 
between Petrinism and Paulinism, it has also never been possible for me 
to get a credible conception of a reconciliation effected by means of a 
literature sailing between the contending parties under false colors. 
In respect to the Acts of the Apostles, in particular, I have been led in 
part to different results from those represented by the modern critical 
school. I have been forced to the conviction that it is a far more trust- 
worthy source of information than is commonly allowed on the part of 
the modern criticism; that older documents worthy of credit, besides 
the well-known W-source, are contained in it; and that the Paulinist 
who composed it has not intentionally distorted (e/s¢eZ/t) the facts, but 
only placed them in the light in which they appeared to him and must 
have appeared to him from the time and circumstances under which he 
wrote. He has not, in my opinion, artificially brought upon the stage 
either a Paulinized Peter, or a Petrinized Paul, in order to mislead his 
readers, but has portrayed the two apostles just as he actually conceived 
of them on the basis of his incomplete information. (Preface, pp. x., xi.) 


It would be hard to find two writers more thoroughly inde- 
pendent, whatever else may be said of them, than Keim and 
Schenkel. Considering their well-known position, they will 
hardly be stigmatized as “apologists” in the contemptuous 
sense in which that term is used by some recent writers, who 
seem to imagine that they display their freedom from par- 
tisan bias by giving their opponents bad names. On this 
subject of the one-sidedness of the Titbingen School, I might 
also refer to the very valuable remarks of Professor Fisher 
in his recent work on The Beginnings of Christianity, and 
in his earlier volume on Zhe Supernatural Origin of Chris- 
tanity. One of the ablest discussions of the question will 
also be found in the Essay on “St. Paul and the Three,” 
appended to the commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, 
by Professor Lightfoot, now Bishop of Durham, a scholar who 
has no superior among the Germans in breadth of learning 
and thoroughness of research. The dissertation of Professor 


12 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Jowett on “St. Paul and the Twelve,” though not very defi- 
nite in its conclusions, likewise deserves perusal.* 

In regard to this collateral question, then, I conceive that 
decided progress has been made in a direction favorable to 
the possibility (to put it mildly) of the Johannean authorship 
of the Fourth Gospel. We do not know anything concern- 
ing the theological position of the Apostle John, which justi- 
fies us in assuming that twenty years after the destruction of 
Jerusalem he could not have written such a work. 

Another of these collateral questions, on which a vast 
amount has been written, and on which very confident and 
very untenable assertions have been made, may now, I 
believe, be regarded as set at rest, so far as concerns our 
present subject, the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. I 
refer to the history of the Paschal controversies of the 
second century. The thorough discussion of this subject by 
Schiirer, formerly Professor Extraordinarius at Leipzig, and 
now Professor at Giessen, the editor of the Theologische 
Literaturzettung, and author of the excellent Meutestament. 
liche Zeitgeschichte, has clearly shown, I believe, that na 
argument against the Johannean authorship of the Fourth 
Gospel can be drawn from the entangled history of these 
controversies. His essay, in which the whole previous litera- 
ture of the subject is carefully reviewed, and all the original 
sources critically examined, was published in Latin at 
Leipzig in 1869 under the title De Controversits Paschalibus 
secundo post Christum natum Sacculo exortis, and afterwards 
in a German translation in Kahnis’s Zeztschrift fiir die 
historische Theologie for 1870, pp. 182-284. There is, accord- 
ing to him, absolutely zo evidence that the Apostle John 
celebrated Easter with the Quartodecimans on the 14th of 
Nisan in commemoration, as is so often assumed, of the day 
of the Lord’s Supper. The choice of the day had no reference 


*In his work on The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians, Romans, 2d ed. 
(London, 1859), i. 417-477; reprinted in a less complete form from the first edition in Noyes’s 
Theol. Essays (1856), p. 357 ff. The very judicious remarks of Mr. Norton in the Christian 
Examiner for May, 1829, vol. vi. p. 200ff.,are still worth reading. See the valuable article of 
Dr. Wil bald Grimm, “‘ Der Apostelconvent,’’ in the Stud. τε. Krit., 1880, pp. 405-432 ; also, Dr. 
H. H. Wendt’s Veubearbeitung of Meyer's Kommentar on the Acts, 5° Aufl., Gottingen, 1880. 
See also Reuss, Hist. afostolique (1876), and Les Efitres pauliniennes (1878), in his La Bible, 
trad. nouvelle, etc. Contra, Hilgenfeld, Zeitschy., 1879, p. 100 ff; 1880, p. 1 ff. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 13 


to that event, nor on the other hand, as Weitzel and Steitz 
maintain, to the supposed day of Christ’s death, but was 
determined by the fact that the 14th was the day of the 
Jewish Passover, for which the Christian festival was substi- 
tuted. The celebration was Christian, but the day adopted 
by John and the Christians of Asia Minor generally was the 
day of the Jewish Passover, the 14th of Nisan, on whatever 
day of the week it might fall, while the Western Christians 
generally, without regard to the day of the month, celebrated 
Easter on Sunday, in commemoration of the day of the 
resurrection. This is the view essentially of Liicke, Gieseler, 
Bleek, De Wette, Hase, and Riggenbach, with differences on 
subordinate points; but Schiirer has made the case clearer 
than any other writer. Schtirer is remarkable among Ger- 
man scholars for a calm, judicial spirit, and for thoroughness 
of investigation; and his judgment in this matter is the 
more worthy of regard, as he does not receive the Gospel of 
John as genuine. A good exposition of the subject, founded 
on Schirer’s discussion, may be found in Luthardt’s work on 
the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, of which an English 
translation has been published, with an Appendix by Dr. 
Gregory of Leipzig, giving the literature of the whole con- 
troversy on the authorship of the Gospel far more completely 
than it has ever before been presented. 

Another point may be mentioned, as to which there has 
come to bea general agreement; namely, that the very late 
date assigned to the Gospel by Baur and Schwegler, 
namely, somewhere between the years 160 and 170 A.D., 
cannot be maintained. Zeller and Scholten retreat to 150; 
Hilgenfeld, who is at last constrained to admit its use by 
Justin Martyr, goes back to between 130 and 140; Renan 
now says 125 or 130; Keim in the first volume of his H/7zszory 
of Fesus of Nazara placed it with great confidence between 
the years 110 and 115, or more loosely, a.p. 100-117.* The 
fatal consequences of such an admission as that were, how- 
ever, soon perceived ; and in the last volume of his A7zstory 


* Geschichte Fesu von Nazara, 1. 155, comp. 146 (Eng. trans. i, 211, comp. 199). 


14 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


of Fesus, and in the last edition of his abridgment of that 
work, he goes back to the year 130.* Schenkel assigns it 
to A.D. I15—120. 7 

This enforced shifting of the date of the Gospel to the 
earlier part of the second century (which I may remark inci- 
dentally is fatal to the theory that its author borrowed from 
Justin Martyr instead of Justin from John) at once pre- 
sents very serious difficulties on the supposition of the 
spuriousness of the Gospel. It is the uniform tradition, 
supported by great weight of testimony, that the Evangelist 
John lived to a very advanced age, spending the latter por- 
tion of his life in Asia Minor, and dying there in the reign of 
Trajan, not far from a.p. 100. How could a spurious Gos- 
pel of a character so peculiar, so different from the earlier 
Synoptic Gospels, so utterly unhistorical as it is affirmed to 
be, gain currency as the work of the Apostle both among 
Christians and the Gnostic heretics, if it originated only 
twenty-five or thirty years after his death, when so many 
who must have known whether he wrote such a work or not 
were still living? 

The feeling of this difficulty seems to have revived the 
theory, put forward, to be sure, as long ago as 1840 by a 
very wild German writer, Lutzelberger, but which Baur and 
Strauss deemed unworthy of notice, that the Apostle John 
was never in Asia Minor at all. This view has recently 
found strenuous advocates in Keim, Scholten, and others, 
though it is rejected and, I believe, fully refuted by critics 
of the same school, as Hilgenfeld. The historical evidence 
against it seems to me decisive; and to attempt to support 
it, as Scholten does, by purely arbitrary conjectures, such as 
the denial of the genuineness of the letter of Irenaeus to 
Florinus, can only give one the impression that the writer 
has a desperate cause.t 


* Geschichte Fesu... fiir weitere Kreise, 3° Bearbeitung, 2¢ Aufl. (1875), p. 40. 

| Das Charakterbild Fesu, 45 Aufl. (1873), p. 370. 

+See Hilgenfeld, Hist. Krit. Einledtung in «εἶ. N. T.'(1875), p. 394 ff.; Bleek, Azul. in a. 
NV. T., 38 Aufl. (1875), p. 167 ff., with Mangold’s note; Fisher, 7ke Beginnings of Christianity 
(1877), p. 327 ff. Compare Renan, L’A xtechrist, p. 557 ff. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 15 


Thus far we have noticed a few points connected with the 
controversy about the authorship of the Fourth Gospel in 
respect to which some progress may seem to have been made 
since the time of Baur. Others will be remarked upon inci- 
dentally, as we proceed. But to survey the whole field of 
discussion in an hour’s discourse is impossible. To treat the 
question of the historical evidence with any thoroughness 
would require a volume; to discuss the internal character of 
the Gospel in its bearings on the question of its genuineness 
and historical value would require a much larger one. All 
therefore which I shall now attempt will be to consider some 
points of the historical evidence for the genuineness of the 
Fourth Gospel, as follows :— 

1. The general reception of the Four Gospels as genuine 
among Christians in the last quarter of the second century. 

2. The inclusion of the Fourth Gospel in the Apostolical 
Memoirs of Christ appealed to by Justin Martyr. 

3. Its use by the various Gnostic sects. 

4. The attestation appended to the book itself. 


I. I BEGIN with the statement, which cannot be questioned, 
that our present four Gospels, and no others, were received 
by the great body of Christians as genuine and sacred books 
during the last quarter of the second century. This appears 
most clearly from the writings of Irenzeus, born not far from 
A.D. 125-130,* whose youth was spent in Asia Minor, and 
who became Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, a.p. 178; of Clement, 
the head of the Catechetical School at Alexandria about the 
year 190, who had travelled in Greece, Italy, Syria, and Pal- 
estine, seeking religious instruction; and of Tertullian, in 
North Africa, who flourished toward the close of the century. 
The four Gospels are found in the ancient Syriac version of 
the New Testament, the Peshito, made in the second century, 
the authority of which has:the more weight as it omits the 
Second and Third Epistles of John, Second Peter, Jude, and 
the Apocalypse, books whose authorship was disputed in the 
early Church. Their existence in the Old Latin version also 


* About AD. 115, according to Zahn in Herzog, 2d ed., vii. 135 sq.; see Smith and Wace’s 
Dict. of Christ. Biogr. iii. 253. 


16 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


attests their currency in North Africa, where that version 
originated some time in the second century. They appear, 
moreover, in the Muratorian Canon, written probably about 
A.D. 170, the oldest list of canonical books which has come 
down to us. 

Mr. Norton in his work on the Genuineness of the Gospels 
argues with great force that, when we take into considera- 
tion the peculiar character of the Gospels, and the character 
and circumstances of the community by which they were 
received, the fact of their universal reception at this period 
admits of no reasonable explanation except on the supposi- 
tion that they are genuine. Ido not here contend for so 
broad an inference: I only maintain that this fact proves 
that our four Gospels could not have originated at this 
period, but must have been in existence long before; and 
that some very powerful influence must have been at work to 
effect their universal reception. I shall not recapitulate 
Mr. Norton’s arguments; but I would call attention to one 
point on which he justly lays great stress, though it is often 
overlooked ; namely, that the main evidence for the genuine- 
ness of the Gospels is of an altogether different kind from 
that which can be adduced for the genuineness of any classi- 
cal work. It is not the testimony of a few eminent Christian 
writers to their private opinion, but it is the evidence which 
they afford of the belief of the whole body of Christians; and 
this, not in respect to ordinary books, whose titles they 
might easily take on trust, but respecting books in which 
they were most deeply interested; books which were the 
very foundation of that faith which separated them from the 
world around them, exposed them to hatred, scorn, and per- 
secution, and often demanded the sacrifice of life itself. 

I would add that the greater the differences between the 
Gospels, real or apparent, the more difficult it must have 
been for them to gain this universal reception, except on the 
supposition that they had been handed down from the begin- 
ning as genuine. This remark applies particularly to the 
Fourth Gospel when compared with the first three. 

The remains of Christian literature in the first three quar- 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 17 


ters of the second century are scanty, and are of such a char- 
acter that, assuming the genuineness of the Gospels, we have 
really no reason to expect more definite references to their 
writers, and more numerous quotations from or allusions to 
them than we actually do find or seem to find. A few letters, 
as the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, now 
made complete by the discovery of a new MS. and of a Syriac 
version of it; the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas, now complete 
in the original; the short Epistle of Polycarp to the Philip- 
pians, and the Epistles (of very doubtful genuineness) attrib- 
uted to Ignatius; an allegorical work, the Shepherd of Her- 
mas, which nowhere quotes either the Old Testament or the 
New; a curious romance, the Clementine Homilies ; and the 
writings of the Christian Apologists, Justin Martyr, Tatian, 
Theophilus, Athenagoras, Hermias, who, in addressing 
heathens, could not be expected to talk about Matthew, 
Mark, Luke, and John, which would be to them names 
without significance,—these few documents constitute 
nearly all the literature of the period. As we should not 
expect the Gospels to be quoted by name in the writings of 
the Apologists, though we do find John expressly mentioned 
by Theophilus, so in such a discussion as that of Justin 
Martyr with Trypho the Jew, Justin could not cite in direct 
proof of his doctrines works the authority of which the Jew 
would not recognize, though he might use them, as he does, 
in attestation of historic facts which he regarded as fulfilling 
prophecies of the Old Testament. 

The author of Supernatural Religion, in discussing the 
evidence of the use of our present Gospels in the first three 
quarters of the second century, proceeds on two assumptions: 
one, that in the first half of this century vast numbers of 
spurious Gospels and other writings bearing the names of 
Apostles and their followers were in circulation in the early 
Church; and the other, that we have a right to expect 
great accuracy of quotation from the Christian Fathers, 
especially when they introduce the words of Christ with 
such a formula as “he said” or “he taught.” Now this 
last assumption admits of being thoroughly tested, and it 


18 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


contradicts the most unquestionable facts. Instead of such 
accuracy of quotation as is assumed as the basis of his 
argument, it is beyond all dispute that the Fathers often 
quote very loosely, from memory, abridging, transposing, 
paraphrasing, amplifying, substituting synonymous words or 
equivalent expressions, combining different passages together, 
and occasionally mingling their own inferences with their 
citations. In regard to the first assumption, a careful sifting 
of the evidence will show, I believe, that there is really no 
proof that in the time of Justin Martyr (with the possible 
exception of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which in 
its primitive form may have been the Hebrew original from 
which our present Greek Gospel ascribed to Matthew was 
mainly derived) there was a single work, bearing the title of 
a Gospel, which as a history of Christ's ministry came into 
competition with our present four Gospels, or which took 
the place among Christians which our Gospels certainly held 
in the last quarter of the second century. Much confusion 
has arisen from the fact that the term ‘“ Gospel” was in 
ancient times applied to speculative works which gave the 
writer's view of the Gospel, z.e., of the doctrine of Christ, or 
among the Gnostics, which set forth their gvoszs ; e.g., among 
the followers of Basilides, Hippolytus tells us, “the Gospel” 
is ἡ τῶν ὑπερκοσμίων γνῶσις, “the knowledge of supermundane 
things” (Ref. Her. vii. 27). Again, the apocryphal Gos- 
pels of the Nativity and the Infancy, or such works as the 
so-called Gospel of Nicodemus, describing the descent of 
Christ into Hades, have given popular currency to the idea 
that there were floating about in the middle of the second 
century a great number of Gospels, rival histories of Christ’s 
ministry; which these apocryphal Gospels, however, are not 
and do not pretend to be. Other sources of confusion, as 
the blunders of writers like Epiphanius, I pass over. To 
enter into a discussion and elucidation of this subject here 
is of course impossible: I will only recommend the read- 
ing of Mr. Norton’s full examination of it in the third vol- 
ume of his Genuinencss of the Cospels, which needs, to be 
sure, a little supplementing, but the main positions of 
which I believe to be impregnable. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 19 


Resting on these untenable assumptions, the author of 
Supernatural Religion subjects this early fragmentary litera- 
ture to a minute examination, and explains away what seem 
to be quotations from or references to our present Gospels 
in these different works as borrowed from some of the multi- 
tudinous Gospels which he assumes to have been current 
among the early Christians, especially if these quotations 
and references do not present a perfect verbal correspond- 
ence with our present Gospels, as is the case with the great 
majority of them. Even if the correspondence is verbally 
exact, this proves nothing, in his view; for the quotations of 
the words of Jesus might be borrowed from other current 
Gospels which resembled ours as much as Matthew, Mark, 
and Luke resemble each other. But, if the verbal agreement 
is zo¢ exact, we have in his judgment a strong proof that the 
quotations are derived from some apocryphal book. So he 
comes to the conclusion that there is no certain trace of the 
existence of our present Gospels for about one hundred and 
fifty years after the death of Christ; 2.6., we will say, till about 
A.D. 180. 

But here a question naturally arises: How is it, if no trace 
of their existence is previously discoverable, that our four 
Gospels are suddenly found toward the end of the second 
century to be received as sacred books throughout the whole 
Christian world? His reply is, “It is totally unnecessary for 
me to account for this.”’* He stops his investigation of the 
subject just at the point where we have solid facts, not con- 
jectures, to build upon. When he comes out of the twilight 
into the full blaze of day, he shuts his eyes, and refuses to 
see anything. Such a procedure cannot be satisfactory to a 
sincere inquirer after the truth. The fallacy of this mode of 
reasoning is so well illustrated by Mr. Norton, that I must 
quote a few sentences. He says:— 

About the end of the second century the Gospels were reverenced as 
sacred books by a community dispersed over the world, composed of 


men of different nations and languages. There were, to say the least, 
sixty thousand copies of them in existence;}they were read in the 


* Supernatural Religion, 6th edition (1875), and 7th edition (1879), vol. i. p. ix. (Preface.) 
tSee Norton’s Genxuineness of the Gospels, 2d ed., i. 45-54. 


20 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


churches of Christians ; they were continually quoted, and appealed to, 
as of the highest authority; their reputation was as well established 
among believers from one end of the Christian community to the other, 
as itis at the present day among Christians in any country. But it is 
asserted that before that period we find no trace of their existence; and 
it is, therefore, inferred that they were not in common use, and but little 
known, even if extant in their present form. This reasoning is of the 
same kind as if one were to say that the first mention of Egyptian 
Thebes is in the time of Homer. He, indeed, describes it as a city 
which poured a hundred armies from its hundred gates; but his is the 
first mention of it, and therefore we have no reason to suppose that, 
before his time, it was a place of any considerable note.* 

As regards the general reception of the four Gospels in 
the last quarter of the second century, however, a slight 
qualification is to be made. Some time in the latter half of 
the second century, the genuineness of the Gospel of John 
was denied by a few eccentric individuals (we have no 
ground for supposing that they formed a sect), whom Epiph- 
anius (/7er. li., comp. liv.) calls Alogd (‘Aroyo), a nickname 
which has the double meaning of ‘deniers of the doctrine of 
the Logos,” and ‘men without reason.” They are probably 
the same persons as those of whom Irenzus speaks in one 
passage (/er. 111. 11. § 9), but to whom he gives no name. 
But the fact that their difficulty with the Gospel was a 
doctrinal one, and that they appealed to no tradition in favor 
of their view; that they denied the Johannean authorship of 
the Apocalypse likewise, and absurdly ascribed both books 
to Cerinthus, who, unless all our information about him is 
false, could not possibly have written the Fourth Gospel, 
shows that they were persons of no critical judgment. Zeller 
admits (Theol. Fahrb. 1845, p. 645) that their opposition does 
not prove that the Gospel was not generally regarded in 
their time as of Apostolic origin. The fact that they 
ascribed the Fourth Gospel to Cerinthus, a heretic of the 
first century, contemporary with the Apostle John, shows 
that they could not pretend that this Gospel was a recent 
work. 

Further, while the Gnostics generally agreed with the 


* Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, second edition, vol. i. pp. 195, 196. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 21 


Catholic Christians in receiving the four Gospels, and espe- 
cially the Gospel of John, which the Valentinians, as Irenzeus 
tells us, used plenissime (fer. 111. 11. § 7), the Marcionites 
are an exception. They did not, however, question the 
genuineness of the Gospels, but regarded their authors as 
under the influence of Jewish prejudices. Marcion therefore 
rejected all but Luke, the Pauline Gospel, and cut out from 
this whatever he deemed objectionable. We may note here, 
incidentally, that the author of Supernatural Religion, in the 
first six editions of his work, contended, in opposition to the 
strongest evidence, that Marcion’s Gospel, instead of being, 
as all ancient testimony represents it, a mutilated Luke, was 
the earlier, original Gospel, of which Luke’s was a later 
amplification. This theory was started by Semler, that 
varium, mutabile et mirabile capitulum, as he is called bya 
German writer (Matthei, V.7. Gv, i. 687); and after having 
been adopted by Eichhorn and many German critics was so 
thoroughly refuted by Hilgenfeld in 1850, and especially by 
Volkmar in 1852, that it was abandoned by the most eminent 
of its former supporters, as Ritschl, Zeller, and partially by 
Baur. But individuals differ widely in their power of resist- 
ing evidence opposed to their prejudices, and the author of 
Supernatural Religion has few equals in this capacity. We 
may therefore feel that something in these interminable 
discussions is settled, when we note the fact that εξ has at 
last surrendered. His conversion is due to Dr. Sanday, who 
in an article in the Fortnightly Review (June, 1875, p. 855, ff.), 
reproduced in substance in his work on The Gospels in the 
Second Century, introduced the linguistic argument, showing 
that the very numerous and remarkable peculiarities of lan- 
guage and style which characterize the parts of Luke which 
Marcion retained are found so fully and completely in those 
which he rejected as to render diversity of authorship utterly 
incredible. | 

But to return to our first point,— the unquestioned recep- 
tion of our present Gospels throughout the Christian world 
in the last quarter of the second century, and that, I add, 
without the least trace of any previous controversy on the 


22 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


subject, with the insignificant exception of the Alogi whom I 
have mentioned. This fact has a most important bearing on 
the next question in order; namely, whether the Apostolical 
Memoirs to which Justin Martyr appeals about the middle of 
the second century were or were not our four Gospels. To 
discuss this question fully would require a volume. All that 
I propose now is to place the subject in the light of acknowl- 
edged facts, and to illustrate the falsity of the premises from 
which the author of Supernatural Religion reasons. 


II. Tue writings of Justin consist of two Apologies or 
Defences of Christians and Christianity addressed to the 
Roman Emperor and Senate, the first written most probably 
about the year 146 or 147 (though many place it in the 
year 138),* and a Dialogue in defence of Christianity with 
Trypho the Jew, written somewhat later (Dza/. c. 120, comp. 
Apol, i. c. 26). 

In these writings, addressed, it is to be observed, to unbe- 
lievers, he quotes, not in proof of doctrines, but as authority 
for his account of the teaching of Christ and the facts in his 
life, certain works of which he commonly speaks as the 
“Memoirs” or “Memorabilia” of Christ, using the Greek 
word, ᾿Απομνημονεύματα, With which we are familiar as the desig- 
nation of the Memorabilia of Socrates by Xenophon. Of 
these books he commonly speaks as the ‘Memoirs by the 
Apostles,” using this expression eight times ; ¢ four times he 
calls them “the Memoirs”’ simply; || once, ‘‘Memoirs made by 
the Apostles which are called Gospels”’ (Aol. 1. 66); once, 
when he cites a passage apparently from the Gospel of Luke, 
‘Memoirs composed by the Apostles of Christ and their 
companions,’ —literally, “those who followed with them” 
(Dial. c. 103); once again (Déa/. c. 106), when he speaks of our 
Saviour as changing the name of Peter, and of his giving to 
James and John the name Boanerges, a fact only mentioned 


*So Waddington, Mém. de l’Acad. des inscr. et belles-lettres, τ. xxvi., pt. i., Ὁ. 264 ff. ; 
Harnack in Theol. Literatur zeitung, 1876, col. 14, and Caspari, as there referred 10; [Light- 
foot, Apostolic Fathers, pt. ii., vol. i. p. 462]. 

+See Engeihardt, Das Christenthum Fustins des Miirtyrers (1878), p. 71 ff.; Renan, 
L’ Eglise chrétienne (1879), p- 397, 0. 4. ᾿ 

tA fol. i. 67; Dial. cc. 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106 δὲς: τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀπο- 
στόλων (τῶν ἀποστ. αὐτοῦ. SC. Χριστοῦ. 5 times). 


ll Dzad. ες. 105 ter, 107. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 23 


so far as we know in the Gospel of Mark, he designates as 
his authority “ Peter’s Memoirs,’ which, supposing him to 
have used our Gospels, is readily explained by the fact that 
Peter was regarded by the ancients as furnishing the mate- 
rials for the Gospel of Mark, his travelling companion and 
interpreter.* Once more, Justin speaks in the plural of 
“those who have written Memoirs (οἱ ἀπομνημονεύσαντες) of all 
things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ, whom (vic) we 
believe” (Afo/. i. 33); and, again, “the Apostles wrote” 
so and so, referring to an incident mentioned in all four of 
the Gospels (Dial. c. 88). 

But the most important fact mentioned in Justin’s writings 
respecting these Memoirs, which he describes as “ composed 
by Apostles of Christ and their companions,” appears in his 
account of Christian worship, in the sixty-seventh chapter of 
his First Apology. ‘On the day called Sunday,” he says, 
“‘all who live in cities or in the country gather together to 
one place, and the Memoirs by the Apostles or the writings 
of the Prophets are read, as long as time permits. When the 
reader has finished, the president admonishes and exhorts to 
the imitation of these good things.” It appears, then, that, 
at the time when he wrote, these books, whatever they were, 
on which he relied for his knowledge of Christ’s teaching 
and life, were held in at least as high reverence as the writ- 
ings of the Prophets, were read in the churches just as our 
Gospels were in the last quarter of the second century, and 
formed the basis of the hortatory discourse that followed. 
The writings of the Prophets might alternate with them in 
this use; but Justin mentions the Memoirs first. 

These “Memoirs,” then, were well-known books, distin- 


ἘῚ adopt with most scholars (verszs Semisch and Grimm) the construction which refers the 
αὐτοῦ in this passage not to Christ, but to Peter, in accordance with the use of the genitive after 
ἀπομνημονεύματα everywhere else in Justin. (See a note on the question in the Christian 
Examiner for July, 1854, ἵν]. 128 1.) For the statement in the text, see Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 
iv. 5.: Licet et Marcus quod edidit [evangelium] Petri affrmetur, cujus interpres Marcus. Jerome, 
De Vir. ill. c. 1.: Sed et Evangelium juxta Marcum, qui auditor ejus [sc. Petri] et interpres fuit, 
hujus dicitur. Comp. zézd. c. 8, and ZZ. 120 (al. 150) ad Hedib. c. 11. See also Papias, ap. 
Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 39; Ireneus, Her. iii. 1, ὃ τ (ap. Euseb. ν. 8); το, §6; Clement of Alex- 
andria ap. Euseb. ii. 15; vi. 14; Origen ap. Euseb. vi. 25; and the striking passage of Eusebius, 
Dem. Evang. iii. 3, pp. 1204-1228, quoted by Lardner, Works iv. οἵ ff. (Lond. 1829). 


24 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


guished from others as the authoritative source of instruc- 
tion concerning the doctrine and life of Christ. 

There is one other coincidence between the language 
which Justin uses in describing these books and that which 
we find in the generation following. The four Gospels as a 
collection might indifferently be called, and were indifferently 
cited as, “the Gospels” or “the Gospel.” We find this use of 
the expression “the Gospel” in Theophilus of Antioch, 
Irenzeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus, the 
Apostolical Constitutions, Tertullian, and later writers gen- 
erally.* Now Justin represents Trypho as saying, “1 know 
- that your precepts in what is called the Gospel (ἐν τῷ λεγομένῳ 
εὐαγγελίῳ) are so wonderful and great as to cause a suspicion 
that no one may be able to observe them.”” (Dza/.c. 10.) In 
another place, he quotes, apparently, Matt. xi. 27 (comp. 
Luke x. 22) as being “written in the Gospel.’t No plausi- 
ble explanation can be given of this language except that 
which recognizes in it the same usage that we constantly 
find in later Christian writers. The books which in one 
place Justin calls ‘‘Gospels,” books composed by Apostles 
and their companions, were in reference to what gave them 
their distinctive value ove. They were the record of the 
Gospel of Christ in different forms. No ove of our present 
Gospels, if these were in circulation in the time of Justin, 
and certainly no oze of that great number of Gospels which 


*See Justin or Pseudo-Justin, De Res. c. 10.—Ignat. or Pseudo-Ignat. Ad Philad. cc. 5, 
8; Smyrn. cc. 5(?), 7-—Pseudo-Clem. 2 Ef. ad Cor. c. 8.—Theophil. iii. 14.—Iren. Her. 
7. δ 4) 8:.5.4} 20. 8.2; 27. $2. i. 22. 8.5: 20: 8,2. ||. 5. Sis) 9: 5.2; 10. S§2) 61 17.0995 
(τετράμορφον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον), 9; 16.§5. iv.20. δὲ 6᾽Ὸ 1 32: § 0's) 34. § 1.—Clem. Al. Ped. i. c. 
5, pp- 104, 105, 225 ed. Potter; c. 9, pp. 143, 145 225, 148. ii. 1, Ὁ. 1693 Ὁ. 10, p. 2353 C. 12, p. 
246. Strom. ii. 16, p. 467. 111. 6, p. 5373 C.11, P. 544. iv. 1, Pp. 564; ὃ: 4, p. 570. V. 5, p. 664. 
vi. 6, p. 764; δ. 11, Ὁ. 784 dts; ὦ. 14, p. 797: Vii.3, Ρ- 836. cl. proph. cc. 50, 57.— Origen, Cont. 
Cels. i. 51. 11. 13, 24, 27, 34, 36, 37, 61, 63 (Opp. I. 367, 398, 409, 411, 415, 416 δὲς, 433, 434 ed. 
Delarue). Jz Foan. tom. i. §$4, 5. v.§4. (Opp. IV. 4, 98.) Pseudo-Orig. Dial. de recta 
in Deum fide, sect. 1 (Opp. I. 807).— Hippol. Moét. c.6.—Const. Ap. i. 1, 2 δξς, 5,6. ii. 1 δὲς, 
5 bis, 6 bis, 8, 13, 16, 17, 35,39. ill. 7. v. 14. vi. 23 zs, 28. vii. 24. —Tertull. Cast.c. 4. Pudic. c. 
2. Adv. Marc. iv.7. Hermog.c.20. Resurr.c.27. Prax.cc.20,21.— PLuRAL, Muratorian 
Canon (also the sing.).— Theophilus, Ad Autol. iii. 12, τὰ TOV προφητῶν καὶ τῶν εὐαγγελίων. 
—Clem. Al. Strom. iv. 6. p. 582. Hippol. Ref Her. vii. 38, p. 259, τῶν δὲ εὐαγγελίων 7] τοῦ 
ἀποστόλου, and later writers everywhere.— Plera/ used where the passage quoted is found in only 
one of the Gospels, Basilides ap. Hippol. Ref Her. vii. 22, 27.—Const. Ap. ii. 53.— Cyril of 
Jerusalem, Procat. c. 3; Cat. ii. 4; x. 13 xvi. 16.—Theodoret, Quest. in Num. c. xix. 4. 35, 
Migne lxxx. 385; J Ps. xlv. τό, M. Ixxx. 1197; Jz 1 Thess. v. 15, M. 1xxxii. 649, and so often. 


+ On this important passage see Note A at the end of this essay. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 25 


the writer of Supernatural Religion imagines to have been 
current at that period, could have been so distinguished from 
the rest as to be called “ ¢#e Gospel.” 

It has been maintained by the author of Supernatural Re- 
ligion and others that Justin’s description of the Gospels as 
“Memoirs composed by ze Apostles and those who followed 
with them” (to render the Greek verbally) cannot apply to 
works composed by ¢wo Apostles and two companions of 
Apostles: ‘“¢ze Apostles’? must mean a// the Apostles, “ the 
collective body of the Apostles.” (S. &. i. 291.) Well, if it 
must, then the connected expression, ‘those that followed 
with them” (τῶν ἐκείνοις παρακολουθησάντων), where the definite 
article is used in just the same way in Greek, must mean “all 
those that followed with them.” We have, then, a truly mar- 
vellous book, if we take the view of Swpernatural Religion 
that the “Memoirs” of Justin was a single work ; a Gospel, 
namely, composed by “the collective body of the Apostles” 
and the collective body of those who accompanied them. If 
the “Memoirs” consist of several different books ¢hus com- 
posed, the marvel is not lessened. Now Justin is not respon- 
sible for this absurdity. The simple fact is that the definite 
article in Greek in this case distinguishes the two classes to 
which the writers of the Gospels belonged.* 

To state in full detail and with precision all the features of 
the problem presented by Justin’s quotations, and his refer- 
ences to facts in the life of Christ, is here, of course, impos- 
sible. But what is the obvious aspect of the case? 

It will not be disputed that there is a very close cor- 
respondence between the history of Christ sketched by 
Justin, embracing numerous details, and that found in our 
Gospels: the few statements not authorized by them, such 
as that Christ was born in a cave, that the Magi came from 
Arabia, that Christ asa carpenter made ploughs and yokes, 


*For illustrations of this use of the article, see Norton’s Evidences of the Genuineness of 
the Gospels, 1st ed. (1837), voli. p. 190, note. Comp. 1 Thess. ii. r4 and Jude 17, where it would 
be idle to suppose that the writer means that @d/7 the Apostles had given the particular warning 
referred to. Seealso Origen, Cont. Cels. i. 51, p- 367, μετὰ τὴν ἀναγεγραμμένην ἐν τοῖς 
εὐαγγελίοις ὑπὸ τῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ μαθητῶν ἱστορίαν andii. 13, παραπλήσια τοῖς ὑπὸ τῶν 
μαϑητῶν τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ γραφεῖσιν. Add Cont. Cels. ii. 16 init. See, furthe: Note B at the end 
of this essay. 


26 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


present little or no objection to the supposition that they 
were his main authority. These details may be easily ex- 
plained as founded on oral tradition, or as examples of that 
substitution of zzferences from facts for the facts themselves, 
which we find in so many ancient and modern writers, and 
observe in every-day life.* Again, there is a substantial cor- 
respondence between the teaching of Christ as reported by 
Justin and that found in the Gospels. Only one or two 
sayings are ascribed to Christ by Justin which are not con- 
tained in the Gospels, and these may naturally be referred, 
like others which we find in writers who received our four 
Gospels as alone authoritative, to oral tradition, or may have 
been taken from some writing or writings now lost which 
contained such traditions.| That Justin actually used all 
our present Gospels is admitted by Hilgenfeld and Keim. 
But that they were not his main authority is argued chiefly 
from the want of exact verbal correspondence between his 
citations of the words of Christ and the language of our 
Gospels, where the meaning is essentially the same. The 
untenableness of this argument has been demonstrated, I 
conceive, by Norton, Semisch, Westcott, and Sanday, versus 
Hilgenfeld and Supernatural Religion. Its weakness is illus- 
trated in a Note at the end of this essay, and will be further 
illustrated presently by the full discussion of a passage of 
special interest and importance. Justin nowhere expressly 


*Several of Justin’s additions in the way of detail seem to have proceeded from his assumf- 
tzon of the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies, or what he regarded as such. See Semisch, 
Die apost. Denkwiirdigheiten des Miirtyrers Fustinus (1848), p. 377 ff.; Volkmar, Der 
Ursprung unserer Evangelien (1866), p. 124 f.; Westcott, Canon of the NV. T., p. 162, 4th ed. 
(1875), and Dr. E. A. Abbott, art. Gosfeds in the ninth ed. of the Encyclopedia Britannica (p. 817), 
who remarks: ‘‘ Justin never quotes any rival Gospel, nor alleges any words or facts which make 
1t probable he used a rival Gospel; such non-canonical sayings and facts as he mentions are 
readily explicable as the results of lapse of memory, general looseness and inaccuracy, extending 
to the use of the Old as well as the New Testament, and the desire to adapt the facts of the New 
Scriptures to the prophecies of the Old.’? (p. 818). 


+ See Westcott, “‘On the Apocryphal Traditions of the Lord’s Words and Works,’’ appended 
to his 7ρ2γ σα. to the Study of the Gospels, 5th ed. (1875), pp. 453-461, and the little volume of 
J. T. Dodd, Sayings ascribed to our Lord by the Fathers, etc., Oxford, 1874. Compare Norton, 
Genuineness of the Gospels, χὰ ed.,i. 220 ff. Thestress which the author of Supernatural Religion 
lays on the word πάντα in the passage (A fol. i 33) where Justin speaks of ‘‘those who have 
written memoirs of ad/ things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ” shows an extraordinary 
disregard of the common use of such expressions. It is enough to compare, as Westcott does, 
Actsi. 1. For illustrations from Justin (A Zod. ii. 6; i. 45; Dzad. cc. 44, 121) see Semisch, Die 
apost. Denkwiirdigkeiten u. s. wW., Ὁ. 404 f. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 27 


quotes the “Memoirs” for anything which is not substan- 
tially found in our Gospels; and there is nothing in his 
deviations from exact correspondence with them, as regards 
matters of fact, or the report of the words of Christ, which 
may not be abundantly paralleled in the writings of the 
Christian Fathers who used our four Gospels as alone 
authoritative. 

With this view of the state of the case, and of the char- 
acter of the books used and described by Justin though 
without naming their authors, let us now consider the 
bearing of the indisputable fact (with which the author of 
Supernatural Religion thinks he has no concern) of the gen- 
eral reception of our four Gospels as genuine in the last 
quarter of the second century. As I cannot state the argu- 
ment more clearly or more forcibly than it has been done by 
Mr. Norton, I borrow his language. Mr. Norton says -- 


The manner in which Justin speaks of the character and authority 
of the books to which he appeals, of their reception among Christians, 
and of the use which was made of them, proves these books to have 
been the Gospels. They carried with them the authority of the Apostles. 
They were those writings from which he and other Christians derived 
their knowledge of the history and doctrines of Christ. They were relied 
upon by him as primary and decisive evidence in his explanations of the 
character of Christianity. They were regarded as sacred books. They 
were read in the assemblies of Christians on the Lord’s day, in connection 
with the Prophets of the Old Testament. Let us now consider the 
manner in which the Gospels were regarded by the contemporaries of 
Justin. Irenzeus was in the vigor of life before Justin’s death; and the 
same was true of very many thousands of Christians living when Irenzus 
wrote. But he tells us that the four Gospels are the four p llars of the 
Church, the foundation of Christian faith, written by those who had first 
orally preached the Gospel, by two Apostles and two companions of 
Apostles. It is incredible that Irenzeus and Justin should have spoken 
of different books. We cannot suppose that writings, such as the 
Memoirs of which Justin speaks, believed to be the works of Apostles 
and companions of Apostles, read in Christian Churches, and received 
as sacred books, of the highest authority, should, immediately after he 
wrote, have fallen into neglect and oblivion, and been superseded by 
another set of books. The strong sentiment of their value could not so 
silently, and so unaccountably, have changed into entire disregard, and 
have been transferred to other writings. The copies of them spread 
over the world could not so suddenly and mystericusly have disappeared, 


28 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


that no subsequent trace of their existence should be clearly discoverable. 
When, therefore, we find Irenzus, the contemporary of Justin, ascribing 
to the four Gospels the same character, the same authority, and the same 
authors, as are ascribed by Justin to the Memoirs quoted by him, which 
were Called Gospels, there can be no reasonable doubt that the Memoirs 
of Justin were the Gospels of Irenaeus. * 


It may be objected to Mr. Norton’s argument, that ‘‘many 
writings which have been excluded from the canon were 
publicly read in the churches, until very long after Justin’s 
day.” (S.A. 1. 294.) The author of Supernatural Religion 
mentions particularly the Epistle of the Roman Clement to 
the Corinthians, the Epistle of Soter, the Bishop of Rome, 
to the Corinthians, the “Pastor” or “Shepherd” of Hermas, 
and the Apocalypse of Peter. To these may be added the 
Epistle ascribed to Barnabas. 

To give the objection any force, the argument must run 
thus: The writings above named were at one time gener- 
ally regarded by Christians as sacred books, of the highest 
authority and importance, and placed at least on a level with 
the writings of the prophets of the Old Testament. They 
were afterwards excluded from the canon: therefore a similar 
change might take place among Christians in their estimate 
of the writings which Justin has described under the name 
of “Memoirs by the Apostles.” In the course of thirty 
years, a different set of books might silently supersede them 
in the whole Christian world. 

The premises are false. There is no proof that any one 
of these writings was ever regarded as possessing the same 
authority and value as Justin’s “ Memoirs,” or anything like 
it. From the very nature of the case, books received as au- 
thentic records of the life and teaching of CurisT must have 
had an importance which could belong to no others. On 
the character of the teaching and the facts of the life of 
Christ as recorded in the “ Memoirs,” Justin’s whole argu- 
ment rests. Whether he regarded the Apostolic writings 
as “inspired” or not, he unquestionably regarded CurisT as 
inspired, or rather as the divine, inspiring Logos (Afo/. 1. 


* Buidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, 2d ed., vol. i. pp. 237-239. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 29 


33, 36; il. 10); and his teaching as “the new law,” universal, 
everlasting, which superseded “the old covenant.” (See 
Dial. cc. 11, 12, etc.) The books that contained this were to 
the Christians of Justin’s time the very foundation of their 
faith. 

As to the works mentioned by Supernatural Religion, not 
only is there no evidence that any one of them ever helda 
place in the Christian Church to be compared for a moment 
with that of the Gospels, but there 15 abundant evidence to 
the contrary. They were read in some churches for a time 
as edifying books,—the Epistle of Clement of Rome “in 
very many churches” according to Eusebius (7157. Eccé. iii. 
16),*—and a part of them were regarded by a few Chris- 
tian writers as having apostolic or semi-apostolic authority, 
or as divinely inspired. One of the most definite statements 
about them is that of Dionysius of Corinth (cz~ A.D. 175-180), 
who, in a letter to the church at Rome (Euseb. Ms. Eccl. 
hee) tells us that the Epistle of Soter (d. 1762) Ὁ the 
Christians at Corinth was read in their church for edification 
or “admonition” (νουθετεῖσθαι is the word used) on a certain 
Sunday, and would continue to be so read from time to time, 
as the Epistle of Clement had been. This shows how far the 
occasional public reading of such a writing in the church 
was from implying its canonical authority. —Clement of 
Alexandria repeatedly quotes the Epistle ascribed to Barna- 
bas as the work of ‘Barnabas the Apostle,” but criticises 
and condemns one of his interpretations (Sévom. 11. 15, 
p. 464), and in another place, as Mr. Norton remarks, rejects 
a fiction found in the work (Ped. ii. 10, p. 220, ff.) — “The 
Shepherd” of Hermas in its form claims to be a divine 
vision; its allegorical character suited the taste of many; 
and the Muratorian Canon (cv. A.D. 170) says that it ought 
to be read in the churches, but not as belonging to the writ- 
ings of the prophets or apostles. (See Credner, Gesch. d. 
neutest. Kanon, p. 165.) This was the gencral view of those 
who did not reject it as altogether apocryphal. It appears in 
the Sinaitic MS. as an appendix to the New Testament.—The 
Apocalypse cf Peter appears to have imposed upon some 


* Comp. esp. Lightfoot, Clement of Rome, p. 272 ff. 


30 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


as the work of the Apostle. The Muratorian Canon says, 
“Some among us are unwilling that it should be read in the 
church.” It seems to have been received as genuine by 
Clement of Alexandria (Zcl. proph. cc. 41, 48, 49) and Meth- 
odius (Conv. 11. 6). Besides these, the principal writers who 
speak of it are Eusebius (72:2. Accel. ili. 3. §2; 25. §45 ve 
14. $1), who rejects it as uncanonical or spurious, Jerome 
(De Vir. τ, c. 1), who puts it among apocryphal writings, 
and Sozomen (f/zs¢. Eccl. vii. 19), who mentions that, though 
rejected by the ancients as spurious, it was read once a year 
in some churches of Palestine.* 

It appears sufficiently from what has been said that there 
is nothing in the limited ecclesiastical use of these books, or 
in the over-estimate of their authority and value by some 
individuals, to detract from the force of Mr. Norton’s argu- 
ment. Swpernatural Religion here confounds things that 
differ very widely.f 

At this stage of the argument, we are entitled, I think, to 
come to the examination of the apparent use of the Gospel 
of John by Justin Martyr with a strong presumption in favor 
of the view that this apparent use is real. In other words, 
there is a very strong presumption that the “ Memoirs” used 
by Justin and called by him “ Gospels” and collectively ‘“ the 
Gospel,” and described as “composed by Apostles of Christ 
and their companions,” were actually our present Gospels, 
composed by two.Apostles and two companions of Apostles. 
This presumption is, I believe, greatly strengthened by the 
evidence of the use of the Fourth Gospel by writers between 
the time of Justin Martyr and Irenzeus, and also by the. 
evidences of its use before the time of Justin by the Gnostic 
sects. But, leaving those topics for the present, we will con- 
sider the direct evidence of its use by Justin. 

The first passage noticed will be examined pretty thor- 
oughly: both because the discussion of it will serve to illus- 
trate the false reasoning of the author of Supernatural Relig- 


* See, on this book, Hilgenfeld, Vou. Test. extra canonem receptumt (1866), iv. 74, ff. 
+ On this whole subject, see Semisch, Die afostol. Denkwiirdigkeiten des Mart. Fustinus, 
p. 61, ff. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 31 


ton and other writers respecting the quotations of Justin 
Martyr which agree in substance with passages in our 
Gospels while differing in the form of expression; and 
because it is of special importance in its bearing on the 
question whether Justin made use of the Fourth Gospel, and 
seems to me, when carefully examined, to be in itself almost 
decisive. 

The passage is that in which Justin gives an account of 
Christian baptism, in the sixty-first chapter of his First 
Apology. Those who are ready to make a Christian pro- 
fession, he says, “δῖε brought by us to a place where there 
is water, and in the manner of being born again [ov regen- 
erated] in which we ourselves also were born again, they are 
born again; for in the name of the Father of the universe 
and sovereign God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and 
of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the bath in the water. 
For Christ also said, Except ye be born again, ye shall in 
no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven (‘Av μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε, 
ov μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν TOV οὐρανῶν). But that it is impossible 
for those who have once been born to enter into the wombs 
of those who brought them forth is manifest to all.” 

The passage in the Gospel of John of which this reminds 
us is found in chap. iii. 3-5: “ Jesus answered and said to him 
[Nicodemus], Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man 
be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God (Hav μή τις 
γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, ov δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ). Nicodemus saith 
to him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he 
enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born? 
Jesus answered, Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man 
be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the 
kingdom of God” (Ἐὰν μῇ τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος, οὐ δύναται 
εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ). Compare verse 7, “Marvel not 
that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew” (δεὶ ὑμᾶς γεννηθῆναι 
ἄνωθεν); and Matt. xviii. 3, “Verily I say unto you, Except ye 
be changed, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise 
enter into the kingdom of heaven” (οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν 
τῶν οὐρανῶν). 


I have rendered the Greek as literally as possible; but it 


32 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


should be observed that the word translated “ anew,” ἄνωθεν͵ 
might also be rendered “from above.” This point will be 
considered hereafter. 

Notwithstanding the want of verbal correspondence, I 
believe that we have here in Justin a free quotation from 
the Gospel of John, modified a little by a reminiscence of 
Matt. xviii: 2: 

The first thing that strikes us in Justin’s quotation is the 
fact that the remark with which it concludes, introduced by 
Justin as if it were a grave observation of his own, is simply 
silly in the ~onnection in which it stands. In John, on the 
other hand, where it is not to be understood as a serious 
question, it admits, as we shall see, of a natural explanation 
as the language of Nicodemus. This shows, as everything 
else shows, the weakness (to use no stronger term) of Volk- 
mar’s hypothesis, that John has here borrowed from Justin, 
not Justin from John. The observation affords also, by its 
very remarkable peculiarity, strong evidence that Justin 
derived it, together with the declaration which accompanies 
it, from the Fourth Gospel. 

It will be well, before proceeding to our immediate task, 
to consider the meaning of the passage in John, and what 
the real difficulty of Nicodemus was. He could not have 
been perplexed by the figurative use of the expression “to 
be born anew”: that phraseology was familiar to the Jews 
to denote the change which took place in a Gentile when he 
became a proselyte to Judaism.* But the unqualified lan- 
guage of our Saviour, expressing a universal necessity, 
implied that even the Jewish Pharisee, with all his pride of 
sanctity and superior knowledge, must experience a radical 
change, like that which a Gentile proselyte to Judaism under- 
went, before he could enjoy the blessings of the Messiah's 
kingdom. This was what amazed Nicodemus. Pretending 
therefore to take the words in their literal meaning, he asks, 
“ How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter,” 
etc. He imposes an absurd and ridiculous sense on the 


* See Lightfoot and Wetstein, or T. Robinson or Wiinsche, on John iii. 3 or 5. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 33 


words, to lead Jesus to explain himself further.* Thus 
viewed, the question is to some purpose in John; while 
the language in Justin, as a serious proposition, is idle, and 
betrays its non-originality. 

The great difference in the form of expression between 
Justin’s citation and the Gospel of John is urged as decisive 
against the supposition that he has here used this Gospel. 
It is observed further that all the deviations of Justin from 
the language of the Fourth Gospel are also found in a 
quotation of the words of Christ in the Clementine Homilies; 
and hence it has been argued that Justin and the writer of 
the Clementines quoted from the same apocryphal Gospel, 
perhaps the Gospel according to the Hebrews or the Gospel 
according to Peter. In the Clementine Homilies (xi. 26), 
the quotation runs as follows: “For thus the prophet 
swore unto us, saying, Verily I say unto you, except ye be 
born again by living water into the name of Father, Son, 
Holy Spirit, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of 
heaven.’’ But it will be seen at once that the author of the 
Clementines differs as widely from Justin as Justin from the 
Fourth Gospel, and that there is no plausibility in the suppo- 
sition that he and Justin quoted from the same apocryphal 
book. The quotation in the Clementines is probably only 
a free combination of the language in John iii. 3-5 with 
Matt. xxviii. 19, modified somewhat in form by the influence 
of Matt. xviii. 3.17 Such combinations of different passages, 
and such quotations of the words of Christ according to the 
sense rather than the letter, are not uncommon in the 
Fathers. Or, the Clementines may have used Justin.¢ 

I now propose to show in detail that the differences in form 
between Justin’s quotation and the phraseology of the Fourth 
Gospel, marked as they are, all admit of an easy and natural 
explanation on the supposition that he really borrowed from 
it, and that they are paralleled by similar variations in the 


*See Norton, A New Trans. of the Gospels, with Notes, vol. ii. p. 507. 

7+On the quotations from the Gospel of John as well as from the other Gospels in the 
Clementine Homilies, see Sanday, The Gosfels ix the Second Century, pp. 288-295; comp. pp. 
161-187. See also Westcott, Caxon of the N. T., pp. 282-288; and comp. pp. 150-156. 

4So Bleek, Beztrdge, p. 221; Anger, Synopsis, p. 273; De Wette, Zin. § ὅγε, note g. 
Comp. Keim, Urchrist., p. 225, note, who asserts, in general, that Justin Martyr is ‘‘ besonders 
benutzt ”’ by the author of the Clementine Homilies. 


34 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


quotations of the same passage by Christian writers who 
used our four Gospels as their exclusive authority. If this 
is made clear, the fallacy of the assumption on which the 
author of Supernatural Religion reasons in his remarks on 
this passage, and throughout his discussion of Justin’s quota- 
tions, will be apparent. He has argued on an assumption of 
verbal accuracy in the quotations of the Christian Fathers 
which is baseless, and which there were peculiar reasons for 
not expecting from Justin in such works as his Apologies.* 

Let us take up the differences point by point : — 

1. The solemn introduction, “Verily, verily I say unto 
thee,’ is omitted. But this would be very naturally omitted: 
(1) because it is of no importance for the sense; and (2) 
because the Hebrew words used, ᾿Αμὴν ἀμήν, would be unintel- 
ligible to the Roman Emperor, without a particular explana- 
tion (compare Afol. 1. 65). (3) It is usually omitted by 
Christian writers in quoting the passage: so, for example, by 
the Docetist in Hippotytus (Ref. Her. viii. 10, p. 267), IRE. 
N#&US (Frag. 35, ed. Stieren, 33 Harvey), ORIGEN, in a Latin 
version (/z Ex. Hom.v.1, Opp. ii. 144, ed. Delarue ; Jz Ep. ad 
Rom. lib. v. c. 8, Opp. iv. 560), the APosToLIcAL COoNSTITU- 
TIONS (vi. 15), EuseBius twice (/z /sa. i. 16, 17, and ili. I, 2; 
Migne xxiv. 96, 109), ATHANASIUS (De J/ucarn. c. 14, Opp. 
i. 59, ed. Montf.), Cyriz oF JERUSALEM twice (Caz. ili. 4; 
xvii. 11), BASIL THE GREAT (Adv. Eunom. lib. v. Opp. 1. 308 
(437), ed. Benedict.), PszEupo-BasiL three times (De aft. 
U2. §§ 2,:6; ti. τ 8 15- Opp: iP Ὅσο (896), 633 (S00) eRe 
(925) ), GreGcory Nyssen (De Christz Bapt. Opp. 111. 369), 
EPHRAEM Syrus (De Penit. Opp. 111. 183), Macarius Ateyp- 


*On the whole subject of Justin Martyr’s quotations, I would refer to the admirably clear, 
forcible, and accurate statement of the case in Norton’s Evidences of the Genuineness of the 
Gospels, 2d ed., vol. i. pp. 200-239, and Addit. Note E, pp. ccxiv.-ccxxxvili. His account is 
less detailed than that of Semisch, Hilgenfeld, and Sufernatural Religion, but is thoroughly 
trustworthy. On one point there may be a doubt: Mr. Norton says that “‘ Justin twice gives the 
words, Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee, as those uttered at our Saviour’s 
baptism; and in one place says expressly that the words were found in the Memoirs by the 
Apostles.’ This last statement seems to me incorrect. The quotations referred to will be found 
in Dial. c. Tryph. cc. 88, 103; but in neither case does Justin say, according to the grammatical 
construction of his language, that the words in question were found in the Memoirs, though it is 
probable that they were. (See below, p. ro1 1.) The discussion of Justin’s quotations by 
Prof. Westcott and Dr. Sanday in the works referred to in note on the preceding page is also 
valuable, especially in reference to the early variations in the text of the Gospels. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 35 


ταῦθ (Hom. xxx. 3), CHRysostom (De consubst. vii. 3, Opp. 
i. 505 (618), ed. Montf.; Zz Gen. Serm. vii. 5, Opp. iv. 681 
(789), and elsewhere repeatedly), THEODQRET (Quest. in 
Num. 35, Migne Ixxx. 385), Bastt or SELEUCIA (Orat. 
xxviii. 3, Migne Ixxxv. 321), and a host of other writers, both 
Greek and Latin,—I could name /orty, if necessary. 

2. The change of the indefinite zc, in the singular, to the 
second person plural: ‘‘Except @ man be born anew”’ to 
“Except ye be born anew.” This also is unimportant. 
This is shown, and the origin of the change is partially 
explained (1) by the fact, not usually noticed, that it is made 
by the speaker himself in the Gospel, in professedly repeating 
in the seventh verse the words used in the third; the indefi- 
nite singular involving, and being equivalent to, the plural. 
Verse 7 reads: “Marvel not that I sazd unto thee, Ye must 
be born anew.” (2) The second person plural would also 
be suggested by the similar passage in Matt. xviii. 3, “ Except 
ye be changed and become as little children, ye shall in no 
wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Nothing was more 
natural than that in a quotation from memory the language 
of these two kindred passages should be Somewhat mixed; 
and such a confusion of similar passages is frequent in the 
writings of the Fathers. This affords an easy explanation 
also of Justin’s substituting, in agreement with Matthew, 
“shall in no wise enter” for “cannot enter,” and “kingdom 
of heaven” for “kingdom of God.” The two passages of 
John and Matthew are actually mixed together in a some- 
what similar way ina free quotation by CLEMENT oF ALEx- 
ANDRIA, a writer who unquestionably used our Gospels alone 
as authoritative——‘“the four Gospels, which,” as he says, 
“have been handed down to us” (Strom. iii. 13, p. 553).* 
(3) This declaration of Christ would often be quoted in the 
early Christian preaching, in reference to the importance of 
baptism ; and the second person plural would thus be natu- 


* Clement (Cohort. ad Gentes, c. 9, p. 69) blends Matt. xviii. 3 and John iii. 3 as follows: 
““Except ye again become as little children, and Je orn again (ἀναγεννηθῆτεγ, as the Scripture 
saith, ye will in no wise receive him who is truly your Father, and will in no wise ever enter into 
the kingdom of heaven.’ 


36 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


rally substituted for the indefinite singular, to give greater 
directness to the exhortation. So in the CLEMENTINE Hom1- 
LIES (xi. 26), and,in both forms of the CLEMENTINE ΕΡΙΤΟΜῈ 
(c. 18, pp. 16, 134, ed: Dressel, Lips: 1859). (4) That this 
change of number and person does not imply the use of an 
apocryphal Gospel is further shown by the fact that it is 
made twice in quoting the passage by Jeremy Taylor, who 
in a third quotation also substitutes the plural for the singu- 
lar in a somewhat different way.* (See below, p. 42.) 

ecw he change of ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, Verse 3 (or γεννηθῇ 
merely, verse 5), “ Except a man be born anew,” or “over 
‘again,’ into ἂν μὴ ἀναγεννηϑῆτε, “Except ye be born again,” or 
“regenerated’’; in other words, the substitution of ἀναγεννᾶσϑαι 
for γεννᾶσϑαι ἄνωϑεν, or for the simple verb in verse 5, presents 
no real difficulty, though much has been made of it. (1) It 
is said that γεννᾶσϑαι ἄνωϑεν cannot mean “to be born anew,” 
but must mean “to be born from above.” But we have the 
clearest philological evidence that ἄνωϑεν has the meaning of 
“anew,” “over again,’ as well as “from above.” In the 
only passage in a classical author where the precise phrase, 
γεννᾶσϑαι ἄνωϑεν, has been pointed out, namely, Artemidorus on 
Dreams, i. 13, ed. Reiff (al. 14), it cannot possibly have any 
other meaning. Meyer, who rejects this sense, has fallen 
into a strange mistake about the passage in Artemidorus, 
showing that he cannot have looked at it. Meaning “from 
above” or “from the top” (Matt. xxvii. 51), then “from the 
beginning” (Luke i. 3), ἄνωϑεν is used, with πάλιν to strengthen 


* Professor James Drummond well remarks: ‘‘ How easily such a change might be made, when 
verbal accuracy was not studied, is instructively shewn in Theophylact’s paraphrase [I translate 
the Greek ]: ‘ But I say unto thee, that both thou and every other man whatsoever, unless having 
been born from above [ov anew] and of God, ye receive the true faith [/¢. the worthy opinion] 
concerning me, are outside of the kingdom.’” Chrysostom (also cited by Prof. Drummond) 
observes that Christ’s words are equivalent to ἐὰν ov μὴ γεννηϑῇ Kamas “< Except zhou be 
born,’’ etc., but are put in the indefinite form in order to make the discourse less offensive. 
Photius, in quoting John iii. 5, substitutes ὑμῖν for σοί. (See below, p. 36.) I gladly take this 
opportunity to call attention to the valuable article by Prof. Drummond in the Theological 
Review for October, 1875, vol. vii. pp. 471-488, ‘‘ On the alleged Quotation from the Fourth 
Gospel relating to the New Birth, in Justin Martyr, AZo/. i. c. 6τ.᾽) He has treated the ques- 
tion with the ability, candor, and cautious accuracy of statement which distinguish his writings 
generally. For the quotation given above, see p. 476 of the Revzew. Iam indebted to him for 
several valuable suggestions; but, to prevent misapprehension as to the extent of this indebt- 
edness, I may be permitted to refer to my note on the subject in the American edition of Smith’s 
Dictionary of the Bible, vol. ii. p. 1433, published in 1869, six years before the appearance of 
Prof. Drummond’s article. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 37 


” 


it, to signify “again from the beginning,” “all over again” 
(Gal. iv. 9, where see the passages from Galen and Hippo- 
crates cited by Wetstein, and Wisd. of Sol. xix. 6, where see 
Grimm’s note), like πάλιν ἐκ δευτέρου OF δεύτερον (Matt. XXV1. 42, 
John xxi. 16), and in the classics πάλι αὖ, πάλιν αὖϑις, πάλιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς. 
Thus it gets the meaning “anew,” “over again”; see the 
passages cited by McClellan in his note on John iii. 3.* 
(2) "Avoev was here understood as meaning “again” by the 
translators of many of the ancient versions; namely, the Old 
Latin, “denuo,” the Vulgate, Coptic, Peshito Syriac (Sz. 
Rel., 6th edit., is mistaken about this), A®thiopic, Georgian 
(see Malan’s The Gospel according to St. Fohn, etc.). (3) The 
Christian Fathers who prefer the other interpretation, as 
Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theophylact, recognize the 
fact that the word may have either meaning. The ambi- 
guity is also noticed by Chrysostom. (4) ᾿Αναγεννᾶσϑαι was the 
common word in Christian literature to describe the change 
fevemaed to, So already in 1 Pet. i. 3, 23; comps 1 Pet) i: 
2; and see the context in Justin. (5) This meaning best 
suits the connection. Verse 4 represents it as so understood 
by Nicodemus: “Can he enter @ second time,” etc. The fact 
that John has used the word ἄνωθεν in two other passages in 
a totally different connection (viz. iii. 31, xix. 11) in the 
sense of “from above” is of little weight. He has nowhere 
else used it in reference to the new birth to denote that it is 
a birth from above: to express that idea, he has used a differ- 


*The passages are: Joseph. Azz. i. 18, §3; Socrates in Stobeus, /Vor. exxiv. 41, iv. 135 
Meineke; Harpocration, Lex. 5. v. ἀναδικάσασϑαι;; Pseudo-Basil, De Baft. i. 2. § 7; Can. 
Apost. 46, al. 47, al. 39; to which add Origen, /z Foan. tom. xx. c. 12, Opp. iv. 322, who gives 
the words of Christ to Peter in the legend found in the Acts of Paul: ἄνωθεν μέλλω 
σταυρωϑῆναι = “‘tterum crucifigi.”” Ihave verified McClellan’s references (716 N.T. εἴς. 
vol. 1. p. 284, Lond. 1875), and given them in a formin which they may be more easily found. 

Though many of the best commentators take ἄνωϑεν here in the sense of “from above,” 
as Bengel, Liicke, De Wette, Meyer, Clausen, and so the lexicographers Wahl, Bretschneider, 
Robinson, the rendering ‘‘anew”’ is supported by Chrysostom, Nonnus, Euthymius, Budzus, 
Henry Stephen (Tes. 5. v.), Luther, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Wetstein, Kypke, Krebs, Knapp 
(Scrifia var. Arg. i. 188, ed. 244), Kuinoel, Credner (Bedtrége, i. 253), Olshausen, Tholuck, 
Neander, Norton, Noyes, Aiford, Ewald, Hofmann, Hengstenberg, Luthardt, Weiss, Godet, 
Farrar, Watkins, Westcott, and the recent lexicographers, Grimm and Cremer. The word is not 
to be understood as merely equivalent to “again,” ‘‘a second time,’’ but implies an entire 
change. Compare the use of εἰς τέλος in the sense of ‘‘completely,’’ and the Ep. of Barnabas, 
c. τό, ὃ 8 (cited by Bretschneider); ‘‘ Having received the forgiveness of our sins, and having 
placed our hope in the Name, we became new men, created again from the beginning” 


(πάλιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς). 


38 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


ent expression, γεννηϑῆναι ἐκ ϑεοῦ ΟΥ̓ ἐκ τοῦ ϑεοῦ, “to be born [or 
begotten] of God,” which occurs once in the Gospel (i. 13) 
and nine times in the First Epistle, so that the presumption 
is that, if he had wished to convey that meaning here, he 
would have used here also that unambiguous expression. 

But what is decisive as to the main point is the fact that 
Justin’s word ἀναγεννηϑῇ is actually substituted for γεννηθῇ ἄνωϑεν 
in verse 3, or for the simple γεννηϑῇ in verse 5, by a large 
number of Christian writers who unquestionably quote from 
John; so, besides the CLEMENTINE HomILIEs (xi. 26) and the 
CLEMENTINE ΕΡΙΤΟΜΕ in both forms (c. 18), to which excep- 
tion has been taken with no sufficient reason, IRENUus (Frag. 
35, ed. Stieren, i. 846), Eusesius (Jz J/sa. i. 16, 17; Migne 
xxiv, 96), ATHANASIUS (De Jucarn. c. 14), Bast (Adv. Eunom. 
lib. v. Opp. i. 308 (437)), EpHRAEM SyRus (De Penit. Opp. 
111. 183 (ἀναγεννηϑῇ ἀνωϑεν)), CHRYSOSTOM (/z 1 Ep. ad Cor. xv. 26, 
Opp. x. 378 (440)),* Cyril oF ALEXANDRIA (Jz Joan. ili. 5,, 
ἐξαναγεννηϑῇ δὲ ὕδατος κιτ.λ., 580 Pusey’s critical ed., vol. 1. p. 219; 
Aubert has γεννηθῇ ἐξ 60.) ; PROCOPIUS Gazaus, Comm. in Is. i. 
20 (Migne Ixxxvii. 1840" ae : ἐὰν uh τις ἀναγεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ 
πνεύματος οὗ μὴ εἰσέλθῃ εὶς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν; PHOTIUS, Ad 
Amphiloch, O. 49 (al. 48) (Migne Cl. 260) : ὁ σωτὴρ. . . ἔλεγεν" 
᾿Αμήν, ἀμῆν λέγω ὑμῖν" ἐὰν μή τις ἀναγεννηθῇ δὲ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος, οὐκ 
εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν: and so, probably, 
ANASTASIUS SINAITA preserved in a Latin version (Anagog. 
Contemp. tn Hexaém. lib. iv., Migne 1xxxix. 906, regeneratus ; 
contra, col. 870, genitus, 916, gencratus), and HESYCHIUS OF 
JERUSALEM in a Latin version (/w Levit. xx. 9, Migne xciii. 
1044, vegeneratus ; but col. 974, venatus). In the Old Latin 
version or versions and the Vulgate, the MSS. are divided 
in John iii. 3 between vatws and renatus, and so in verse 4, 
2d clause, between zascz and rvenascz; but in verse 5 venatus 
fucrit is the unquestionable reading of the Latin versions, 
presupposing, apparently, ἀναγεννηϑῇ in the Greek. (See 
Tischendorf’s 8th critical edition of the Greek Test. z7 oc.) 
The Latin Fathers, with the exception of Tertullian and 
Cyprian, who have both readings, and of the author De 
Rebaptismate (c. 3), in quoting the passage, almost invariably 
have renatus. 


* Comp. Curysostom, De Sacerdo?. iii. 5, Opp. i. 385 (110), cited by Westcott, Canon of 
the N. T., 5th ed., 1881, p. xxx., note 1, § 3. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEI 39 


We occasionally find ἀναγεννηθῆναι, “to be born again,” for 
γεννηθῆναι, “to be born,” in the first clause of verse 4; so 
EPHRAEM Syrus (De Penit. Opp. iii. 183), and Cyrit oF 
ALEXANDRIA (Glaph. in Exod. lib. iii., Opp. i. a. 341). 

From all that has been said, it will be seen that the use of 
ἀναγεννηθῆτε here by Justin is easily explained. Whether ἄνωθεν 
in John really means “from above” or “anew” is of little 
importance in its bearing on our question: there can be no 
doubt that Justin say have understood it in the latter sense; 
and, even if he did not, the use of the term ἀναγεννᾶσθαι here 
was very natural, as is shown by the way in which the pas- 
sage is quoted by Irenzeus, Eusebius, and many other writers. 

4. The next variation, the change of ““ caznot see’”’ or “enter 
into” (οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν or εἰσελθεῖν εἰς, Lat. non potest videre, or 
intrare oy introire in) into “sha// not” or “shall in no wise 
see’”’ or “enter into ”’ (οὐ μὴ ἴδῃ, ONCE ἔδοι, OY οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθῃ ΟΥ̓ εἰσέλθητε 
εἰς, TWICE οὐκ εἰσελεύσεται εἰς, Lat. non videbit, ov intrabit or intro- 
ibit in), is both so natural (comp. Matt. xviii. 3) and so trivial 
as hardly to deserve mention. It is perhaps enough to say 
that I have noted seventy-one examples of it in the quotations 
of this passage by forty-four different writers among the 
Greek and Latin Fathers. It is to be observed that in most 
of the quotations of the passage by the Fathers, verses 3 and 
5 are mixed in different ways, as might be expected. 

5. The change of “kingdom of God” into “kingdom of 
heaven” is perfectly natural, as they are synonymous expres- 
sions, and as the phrase, “‘ kingdom of heaven” is used in 
the passage of Matthew already referred to, the language of 
which was likely to be more or less confounded in recollec- 
tion with that of this passage in John. The change is 
actually made in several Greek MSS. in the 5th verse of 
John, including the Sinaitic, and is even received by Tisch- 
endorf into the text, though, I believe, on insufficient grounds. 
But a great number of Christian writers in quoting from John 
make just the same change; so the DocetistT in HIPPOLyY- 
tus (Ref. Her. viii. 10, p. 267), the CLEMENTINE HoMILIES 
(xi. 26), the RECOGNITIONS (i. 69; vi. 9), the CLEMENTINE 
EPITOME (c. 18) in both forms, IRENa&uUS (Frag. 35, ed. 
Stieren), ORIGEN in a Latin version twice (Off. 111. 948; iv. 
483), the AposTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS (vi. 15), EUSEBIUS 


40 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


ΘΙ (29 7. 1 16, ) 17.50 Usa) 2)s ΜΡ xxiv 406: TOO); 
PsEUD-ATHANASIUS (Quest. ad Antioch. 101, Opp. il. 291), 
EPHRAEM Syrus (De Penit. Opp. iii. 183), CHRYSOSTOM five 
or six times (Opp. iv. 681 (789); viii. 1433 (165), 144° (165), 
144° (166) ), THEODORET (Quest. in Num. 35, Migne 1]xxx. 
385), BastL oF SELEUCIA (Orat?. xxviii. 3), PRocopius, PHo- 
Tius, ANASTASIUS SINAITA in a Latin version three times 
(Migne lxxxix. 870, 906, 916), HESYCHIUS OF JERUSALEM in 
a Latin version twice (Migne xcill. 974, 1044), THEODORUS 
ABUCARA (Opuscc. c. 17, Migne xcvii. 1541), TERTULLIAN — 
(De Bapt. c. 13), ANon. De Rebaptismate (c. 3), PHILASTRIUS 
(Her. 120 and 148, ed. Oehler), CHromatius (xz Matt. iii. 14, 
Migne xx. 329), JEROME twice (222. 69, al. 83, and /z Jsa. i. 16; 
Migne xxii. C60, xxv. 35), AUGUSTINE seven times (Off. ii. 
L260, 261. Vo 17455 Vi 327 νὰν 5205 Ux 630s" x20 7 ems 
Bened. 2da), and a host of other Latin Fathers. 

It should be observed that many of the writers whom I 
have cited combine three or four of these variations from 
John. It may be well to give, further, some additional illus- 
trations of the freedom with which this passage is sometimes 
quoted and combined with others. One example has already 
been given from Clement of Alexandria. (See No. 2.) TEr- 
TULLIAN (De apt. 12) quotes it thus: “The Lord says, 
Except a man shall be born of water, he hath not life,’ — Nisi 
natus ex aqua quis erit, non abet vitam. Similarly Ovo 
CLUNIACENSIS (Mor. in Fob, ili. 4, Migne cxxxili. 135): ‘‘ Ve- 
ritas autem dicit, Nisi quis vezatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu 
sancto, non habet vitam eternam.’ ANASTASIUS SINAITA, as 
preserved ina Latin version (Anagog. Contempl. in Hexaém. 
lib. v., Migne lxxxix. 916), quotes the passage as follows: 
“dicens, Nisi quis fuerit generatus ex aqua et Spiritu gu 
fertur super aqguam, non intrabit in regnum c@lorum.” The 
APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS (vi. 15) as edited by Cotelier 
and Ueltzen read: “For the Lord saith, Except a man be 
baptized with (βαπτισϑῇ ἐξ) water and the Spirit, he shall in 
no wise enter into the kingdom of eaven.” Here, indeed, 
Lagarde, with two MSS., edits γεννηθῇ for βαπτισϑῇ, but the 
more difficult reading may well be genuine. Compare 
EutTHyMIuS ZIGABENUS (Panop/. pars 11. tit. 23, Adv. Bogo- 
milos, c 16,in the Latin version in Max. Bibl. Patrum, xix. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 41 


224), “Nisi quis dapizzatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto, 
non zutrabit in regnum Dei,’ and see Jeremy Taylor, as 
quoted below. Dipymus or ALEXANDRIA gives as the words 
of Christ (εἶπεν δέ), “Ye must be born of water” (De Trin. ii. 
12, p. 250, Migne xxxix. 672). It will be seen that all these 
examples purport to be express quotations. 

My principal object in this long discussion has been to 
show how false is the assumption on which the author of 
Supernatural Religion proceeds in his treatment of Justin’s 
quotations, and those of other early Christian writers. But 
the fallacy of his procedure may, perhaps, be made more 
striking by some illustrations of the way in which the very 
passage of John which we have been considering is quoted 
by.a modern English writer. I have noted nine quotations 
of the passage by Jeremy Taylor, who is not generally sup- 
posed to have used many apocryphal Gospels. All of these 
differ from the common English version, and only two of 
them are alike. They exemplify αὐ the peculiarities of vari- 
ation from the common text upon which the writers of the 
Tubingen school and others have laid such stress as proving 
that Justin cannot have here quoted John. I will number 
these quotations, with a reference to the volume and page 
in which they occur in Heber’s edition of Jeremy Taylor’s 
Works, London, 1828, 15 vols. 8vo, giving also such specifi- 
cations as may enable one to find the passages in any other 
edition of his complete Works; and, without copying them 
all in full, will state their peculiarities. No. 1. Life of Christ, 
Part I. Sect. IX. Disc. VI. Of Baptism, part i. § 12. Heber, 
vol. ii. p. 240.— No. 2. /ézd. Disc. VI. Of baptizing Infants, 
part ii. § 26. Heber, ii. 288.— No. 3. 7272, §32. Heber, ii. 
292.— No. 4. Liberty of Prophesying, Sect. XVIII. § 7. 
Heber, viii. 153.— No. 5. 7014. Ad 7. Heber, viii. 190.— No. 
6. Ibid. Ad 18. Heber, vill. 191.—No. 7. 7014. Ad 18. 
Heber, viii. 193.— No. 8. Disc. of Confirm. Sect. I. Heber, 
xi. 238.— No. 9. /ézd. Heber, xi. 244. 

We may notice the following points :— 

1. He has “unless” for “except,” uniformly. This is a 
trifling variation; but, reasoning after the fashion of Super 


42 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


natural Religion, we should say that this uniformity of vari- 
ation could not be referred to accident, but proved that he 
quoted from a different text from that of the authorized 
version. 

2. He has “kingdom of heaven” for “kingdom of God” 
ΕἸΣ ΕΙΠΕ ΝΖ, ΝΟ τ (23) vase 

3. “ Heaven” simply for “kingdom of God” once; No. 6. 

4. “ Shall not enter’’ for ‘cannot enter’’ four times; Nos. 
4, 5, 7, 8; comp. also No. 6. 

5. The second person plural, ye, for the third person sin- 
gular, twice; Nos. 3, 7. 

6. “Baptized with water’ for “born of water’ once; 
No. 7. 

7. “Born again by water” for “born of water” once; 
No. 6. 

8. “Both of water and the Spirit” for ““ of water and of the 
Spirit:’ once No: Ὁ: 

9. “Of” is omitted before “the Spirit” six times; Nos. 
τ 2, Ὁ ΟΣ 8. 

10. “Holy” is zuserted before “Spirit” twice ; Nos. 1, 8. 

No. 1 reads, for example, “ Undess a man be born of water 
and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
heaven.” 

Supernatural Religion insists that, when Justin uses such 
an expression as ‘‘ Christ said,” we may expect a verbally 
accurate quotation.* Now nothing is more certain than that 
the Christian Fathers frequently use such a formula when 
they mean to give merely the substance of what Christ said, 
and not the exact words ; but let us apply our author's prin- 
ciple to Jeremy Taylor. No. 3 of his quotations reads thus: 

“Therefore our Lord hath defined it, Unless ye be born of 
water and the Spirit, ye cannot enter into the kingdom of 
heaven.” 

No. 6 reads, “ Though Christ said, Wone but those that are 
born again by water and the Spirit ska// enter into heaven.” 

No. 7 reads, ‘‘ For Christ never said, Unless ye be baptized 


* “ Justin, in giving the words of Jesus, clearly professed to make an exact quotation.’’— Sw 
pernatural Religion, ii. 309, 7th ed. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 43 


with fire and the Spirit, ye shall not enter into the kingdom 
of heaven, but of water and the Spirit he ad say it.” 

I will add one quotation from the Book of Common Prayer, 
which certainly must be quoting from another apocryphal 
Gospel, different from those used by Jeremy Taylor (he evi- 
dently had several), inasmuch as it professes to give the very 
words of Christ, and gives them ¢zwzce in precisely the same 
form:— ὁ 

“Our Saviour Christ saith, Mone can enter into the 
kingdom of God except he be vegenerate and born anew of 
water and of the Holy Ghost.” (Public Baptism of Infants, 
and Baptism of those of Riper Years.) 

It has been shown, I trust, that in this quotation of the 
language of Christ respecting regeneration the verbal differ- 
ences between Justin and John are not such as to render it 
improbable that the former borrowed from the latter. The 
variations of phraseology are easily accounted for, and are 
matched by similar variations in writers who unquestionably 
used the Gospel of John. 

The positive reasons for believing that Justin derived his 
quotation from this source are, (1) the fact that in no other 
report of the teaching of Christ except that of John do we 
find this figure of the new birth; (2) the insistence in both 
Justin and John on the necessity of the new birth to an en- 
trance into the kingdom of heaven; (3) its mention in both 
in connection with baptism; (4) and last and most important 
of all, the fact that Justin’s remark on the impossibility of a 
second natural birth is such a platitude in the form in which 
he presents it, that we cannot regard it as original. We can 
only explain its introduction by supposing that the language 
of Christ which he quotes was strongly associated in his 
memory with the question of Nicodemus as recorded by 
John.* Other evidences of the use of the Fourth Gospel by 
Justin are the following :— 

(a) While Justin’s conceptions in regard to the Logos were 
undoubtedly greatly affected by Philo and the Alexandrian 


* Engelhardt in his recent work on Justin observes: ‘‘ This remark sets aside all doubt of the 
reference to the fourth Gospel.””—Das Christenthum Fustins des Martyrers, Exlangen, 1878. 


44 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


philosophy, the doctrine of the zzcarnatzon of the Logos was 
utterly foreign to that philosophy, and could only have been 
derived, it would seem, from the Gospel of John.* He ac- 
cordingly speaks very often in language similar to that of 
John (i. 14) of the Logos as “made flesh,’ or as “having 
become man.” t That in the last phrase he should prefer 
the term “man” to the Hebraistic “flesh” can excite no 
surprise. With reference to the deity of the Logos and his 
instrumental agency in creation, compare also especially 
Apol. ii. 6, “through him God created all things ” (δέ αὐτοῦ πάντα 
ἔκτισε), Dial. c. 56, and “οἷ, i. 63, with John 1. 1-3. Since 
the Fathers who immediately followed Justin, as Theophilus, 
Irenzus, Clement, Tertullian, unquestionably founded their 
doctrine of the incarnation of the Logos on the Gospel of 
John, the presumption is that Justin did the same. He pro- 
fesses to hold his view, in which he owns that some Chris- 


p- 350. Weizsiicker is equally strong.—Uxtersuchungen tiber die evang. Geschichte, Gotha, 
1864, pp. 228, 229. 

Dr. Edwin A. Abbott, in the very interesting article GosZe/s in vol. x. of the ninth edition of 
the Encyclopedia Britannica, objects that Justin cannot have quoted the Fourth Gospel here, 
because ‘‘he is arguing for baptism by water,’ and “‘it is inconceivable that... he should not 
only quote inaccurately, but omit the very words [John iii. 5] that were best adapted to support 
his argument.’”’ (p. 821.) But Justin is not addressing an “‘argument”’ to the Roman Emperor 
and Senate for the necessity of baptism by water, but simply giving an account of Christian rites 
and Christian worship. And it is not the mere rite of baptism by water as such, but the necessity 
of the new birth through repentance and a voluntary change of life on the part of him who dedi- 
vates himself to God by this rite, on which Justin lays the main stress,— ‘‘the baptism of the soul 
from wrath and covetousness, envy and hatred.’? (Comp. Déa/. cc. 13, 14, 18.) Moreover, the 
simple word ἀναγεννηθῆτε, as he uses it in the immediate context, and as it was often used, 
includes the idea of baptism. This fact alone answers the objection. A perusal of the chapter in 
which Justin treats the subject (4 o/. i. 61) will show that it was not at all necessary to his pur- 
pose in quoting the words of Christ to introduce the ἐξ ὕδατος. It would almost seem as if 
Dr. Abbott must have been thinking of the Clementine Homilies (xi. 24-27; xiii. 21), where 
excessive importance zs attached to the mere element of water. 

*See Delitzsch, Messianic Prophecies (Edin. 1880), p. 115. See Philo, De Prof. c. το, 
prol. i, p. 561, ed. M. 

toapkoroimbeic ; 4.4.» Apol. c. 32, ὁ λόγος, ὃς τίνα τρόπον σαρκοποιηθεὶς ἄνθρωπος 
γέγονεν. Soc. 66 dis; Dial, cc. 45,84, 87, 100. Comp. Dial. cc. 48 (“was born a man of like 
nature with us, having flesh’’), 70 (‘‘ became embodied’). 


ξἄνθρωπος γενόμενος ; Apel. i. cc. 5 (“the Logos himself who took form and became 
man’), 23 bts, 32, 42, 50, 53, 63 δὲς ; Afol. ii. c. 13; Dial. cc. 48, 57, 64, 67, 68 bis, 76, 85, 100, 
τοι, 125 zs. I have availed myself in this and the preceding note of the references given by Pro- 
fessor Drummond in his article ‘‘Justin Martyr and the Fourth Gospel,”’ in the Theo. Review for 
April and July, 18773 see vol. xiv., p. 172. To this valuable essay 1 am much indebted, and shall 
have occasion to refer to it repeatedly. Professor Drummond compares at length Justin’s doctrine 
of the Logos with that of the proem to the Fourth Gospel, and decides rightly, I think, that the 
statement of the former ‘‘is, beyond all question, in a more developed form”’ than that of the latter. 
In John it is important to observe that λόγος is used with a meaning derived from the sense of 
“word”? rather than ‘‘ reason,’? asin Philo and Justin. The subject is too large to be entered 
upon here. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 45 


tians do not agree with him, “because we have been com- 
manded by Christ himself not to follow the doctrines of men, 
but those which were proclaimed by the blessed prophets 
and taught by uim.” (Dial. c. 48.) Now, as Canon Westcott 
observes, ‘‘the Synoptists do not anywhere declare Christ’s 
pre-existence.” * And where could Justin suppose himself 
to have found this doctrine taught by Christ except-in the 
Fourth Gospel? Compare Afo/. i. 46: “That Christ is the 
first-born of God, being the Logos [the divine Reason] of 
which every race of men have been partakers [comp. John i. 
4, 5, 9], we have been taught and have declared before. And 
those who have lived according to Reason are Christians, 
even though they were deemed atheists; as, for example, 
Socrates and Heraclitus and those like them among the 
Greeks: | 

(6) But more may be said. In one place (Dzal. c. 105) 
Justin, according to the natural construction of his language 
and the course of his argument, appears to refer to the 
“Memoirs” as the source from which he and other Chris- 
tians had learnt that Christ as the Logos was the “only- 
begotten’ Son of God, a title applied to him by John alone 
among the New Testament writers; see John 1. 14, 18; 11]. 
16, 18. The passage reads, “For that he was the only- 
begotten of the Father of the universe, having been begotten 
by him in a peculiar manner as his Logos and Power, and 
having afterwards become man through the virgin, as we have 
learned from the Memoirs, I showed before.” It is posszble 
that the clause, “as we have learned from the Memoirs,” 
refers not to the main proposition of the sentence, but only 
to the fact of the birth from a virgin; but the context as 
well as the natural construction leads to a different view, 
as Professor Drummond has ably shown in the article in 
the Theological Review (xiv. 178-182) already referred to in 
a note. He observes :— 


“The passage is part of a very long comparison, which Justin insti- 
tutes between the twenty-second Psalm and the recorded events of 


*Tntrod. to the Gospel of St. John,” in The Holy Bible... with... Commentary, etc., 
ed. by F. C. Cook, WV. 7. vol. ii. (1880), p. Ixxxiv. 


46 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Christ’s life. For the purposes of this comparison he refers to or 
quotes “the Gospel” once, and “the Memoirs” ten times, and further 
refers to the latter three times in the observations which immediately 
follow. . . . They are appealed to here because they furnish the succes- 
sive steps of the proof by which the Psalm is shown to be prophetic.” 


In this case the words in the Psalm (xxii. 20, 21) which 
have to be illustrated are, “ Deliver my soul from the sword, 
and my only-begotten [Justin perhaps read “¢hy only- 
begotten ”’] from the power of the dog. Save me from the 
mouth of the lion, and my humiliation from the horns of 
unicorns.” ‘These words,” Justin remarks, “are again in a 
similar manner a teaching and prophecy of the things that 
belonged to him [τῶν ὄντων αὐτῷ] and that were going to hap- 
pen. For that he was the only-begotten,” etc., as quoted 
above. Professor Drummond well observes :— 


“There is here no ground of comparison whatever except in the word 
μονογενής [ “ only-begotten”]. ... It is evident that Justin understood 
this as referring to Christ; and accordingly he places the same word 
emphatically at the beginning of the sentence in which he proves the 
reference of this part of the Psalm to Jesus. For the same reason he 
refers not only to events, but to τὰ ὄντα αὐτῷ [“ the things that belonged 
to him” ]. These are taken up first in the nature and title of μονογενής, 
which immediately suggests λόγος and δύναμις [* Logos” and “power” ], 
while the events are introduced and discussed afterwards. The allusion 
here to the birth through the virgin has nothing to do with the quotation 
from the Old Testament, and is probably introduced simply to show how 
Christ, although the only-begotten Logos, was nevertheless a man. If 
the argument were,— These words allude to Christ, because the Me 
moirs tell us that he was born from a virgin, —it would be utterly inco- 
herent. If it were, — These words allude to Christ, because the Me- 
moirs say that he was the only-begotten, —it would be perfectly valid 
from Justin’s point of view. It would not, however, be suitable for a 
Jew, for whom the fact that Christ was μονογενής, not being an historical 
event, had to rest upon other authority ; and therefore Justin changing his 
usual form, says that he had already explained to him a doctrine which 
the Christians learned from the Memoirs. It appears to me, then, most 
probable, that the peculiar Johannine title μονογενής existed in the Gos 
pels used by Justin. * 


In what follows, Prof. Drummond answers Thoma’s ob- 


* Justin also designates Christ as ‘‘ the only-begotten Son” in a fragment of his work against 
Marcion, preserved by Irenzus, Her. iv. 6. §2. Comp. Justin, AZo. i. c. 233 ii. c. 6; 
Dial. c. 48. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 47 


jections * to this view of the passage, correcting some mis- 
translations. In the expression, “as I showed before,” the 
reference may be, not to c. 100, but to c. 61 and similar pas- 
sages, where it is argued that the Logos was “begotten by 
God before all creatures,” which implies a unique generation. 

(c) In the Dialogue with Trypho (c. 88), Justin cites as 
the words of John the Baptist: “I am not the Christ, but 
the voice of one crying ἢν οὐκ εἰμὶ ὁ Χριστός, ἀλλὰ φωνὴ βοῶντος. 
This declaration, “1 am not the Christ,” and this application 
to himself of the language of Isaiah, are attributed to the 
Baptist only in the Gospel of John (i. 20, 23; comp. iii. 28). 
Hilgenfeld recognizes here the use of this Gospel. 

(4) Justin says of the Jews, ‘They are justly upbraided. . . 
by Christ himself as knowing neither the Father nor the 
Son” (Apol. i. 63). Comp. John viii. το, “Ye neither know 
me nor my Father”; and xvi. 3, “ They have not known the 
Father nor me.” It is true that Justin quotes in this con- 
nection Matt. xi. 27; but his language seems to be in- 
fluenced by the passages in John above cited, in which alone 
the Jews are directly addressed. 

(e) Justin says that “Christ healed those who were blind 
from their birth,” τοὺς ἐκ γενετῆς πηρούς (Dial. c. 49; comp. 
Apol. i, 22, ἐκ γενετῆς πονηρούς, where several editors, though 
not Otto, would substitute πηρούς by conjecture). There 
seems to be a reference here to John ix. 1, where we have 
τυφλὸν ἐκ γενετῆς, the phrase ἐκ γενετῆς, “from birth,” being pecu- 
liar to John among the Evangelists, and πηρός being a com- 
mon synonyme of τυφλός; comp. the Apostolical Constitutions 
v. 7. § 17, where we have ὁ ἐκ γενετῆς πηρός in aclear reference 


*In Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift fiir wiss. Theol., 1875, xviii. 551 ff. For other discussions of 
this passage, one may see Semisch, De afost. Denkwiirdigkeiten u.s.w., Ὁ. 188 f.; Hilgenfeld, 
Krit. Untersuchungen u.s.w., Ὁ. 300 f. (versus Semisch) ; Riggenbach, Die Zeugnisse f. d. Ev. 
Yohannis, Basel, 1866, p. 163 f.; Tischendorf, Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst? 
p. 32, 4e Aufl. But Professor Drummond’s treatment of the question is the most thorough. 

Grimm (Theol. Stud. τε. Krit., 1851, p. 687 ff.) agrees with Semisch that it is ‘‘in the highest 
degree arbitrary” to refer Justin’s expression, ‘‘as we have learned from the Memoirs,”’ merely 
to the participial clause which mentions the birth from a virgin; but like Thoma, who agrees 
with him that the reference is to the designation ‘‘ only-begotten,”’ he thinks that Justin has in 
mind merely the confession of Peter (Matt. xvi. 16), referred to in DéaZ. c. roo. This rests on the 
false assumption that Justin can only be referring back toc. τοῦ, and makes him argue that ‘‘ the 
Son ”’ merely is equivalent to ‘‘the only-begotten Son ἢ 


48 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


to this passage of John, and the Clementine Homilies xix. 
22, where περὶ τοῦ ἐκ γενετῆς πηροῦ occurs also in a similar 
reference.* John is the only Evangelist who mentions the 
healing of any congenital infirmity. 

(5) The exact coincidence between Justin (Aol. i. 52; 
comp. Dial. cc. 14 (quoted as from Hosea), 32, 64, 118) and 
John (xix. 37) in citing Zechariah xii. 10 in a form different 
from the Septuagint, ὄψονται εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν, ““ they shall 
look on him whom they pierced,” instead of ἐπιβλέψονται πρὸς μὲ 
ἀνθ᾽ ὧν κατωρχήσαντο, is remarkable, and not sufficiently ex- 
plained by supposing both to have borrowed from Rev. i. 7, 
“every eye shall see him, and they who pierced him.” 
Much stress has been laid on this coincidence by Semisch 
(p. 200 ff.) and Tischendorf (p. 34); but it is possible, if not 
rather probable, that Justin and John have independently 
followed a reading of the Septuagint which had already 
attained currency in the first century as a correction of the; 
text in conformity with the Hebrew.t 

(g) Compare AZol, i. 13 (cited by Prof. Drummond, p: 323): 
“Jesus Christ who became our teacher of these things and 
was born to this end (εἰς τοῦτο γεννηθέντα)͵ who was crucified 
under Pontius Pilate,’ with Christ’s answer to Pilate (John 
xvill. 37), “To this end have I been born, εἰς τοῦτο γεγέννημαι, 
. . . that I might bear witness to the truth.” 

(1) Justin says (Deal. c. 56, p. 276 D), “1 affirm that he 
never did or spake any thing but what he that made the 
world, above whom there is no other God, willed that he 
should both do and speak” ;+ comp. John vill. 28, 29: “As 


*The context in Justin, as Otto justly remarks, proves that πηρούς must here signify 
“‘blind,”’ not ‘‘ maimed’’; comp. the quotation from Isa. xxxv. 5, which precedes, and the “‘ causing 
this one to see,’’ which follows. Keim’s exclamation—‘‘ not a blind man at all! ’? —would have 
been spared, if he had attended to this. (See his Gesch. Fesu von Nazara, i. 139, note; i. 189, 
Eng. trans. ) 


t See Credner, Beztrdige u.s.w., ii. 293 ff. See further on this quotation, p. 66, zz/ra. 


£Dr. Davidson (Jutrod. to the Study of the N.T., London, 1868, ii. 376) translates the last 
clause, “‘intended that he should do and #0 associate with”’ (sic). Though the meaning ‘‘to 
converse with,”’ and then ‘‘to speak,” ‘‘ to say,”’ is not assigned to ὁμιλεῖν in Liddell and Scott, 
or Rost and Palm’s edition of Passow, Justin in the very next sentence uses λαλεῖν as an equiva- 
lent substitute, and this meaning is common in the later Greek. See Sophocles, Greek Lex. s.v- 
ὁμιλέω. Of Dr. Davidson’s translation I must confess my inability to make either grammar or 
sense. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 49 


the Father taught me, I speak these things; and... I 
always do the things that please him” ; also John iv. 34; v. 
19, 30; vil. 16; xii. 49, 50. In the language of Trypho 
which immediately follows (p. 277 A), “ We do not suppose 
that you represent him to have sazd or done or spoken any- 
thing contrary to the will of the Creator of the universe,” 
we are particularly reminded of John xii. 49, —‘“‘The Father 
who sent me hath himself given me a commandment, what I 
should say and what I should speak.” 

(ἢ Referring to a passage of the Old Testament as signi- 
fying that Christ “was to rise from the dead on the third 
day after his crucifixion,” Justin subjoins (Dzal. c. 100), 
“which he received from his Father,’ or more literally, 
“which [thing] he has, having received it from his Father,” 
ὃ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς λαβὼν ἔχε A reference here to John x. 18 
seems probable, where Jesus says respecting his life, “I 
have authority (ἐξουσίαν) to lay it down, and I have authority 
to receive it again (πάλιν λαβεῖν αὐτήν) ; this charge I received 
from my Father ” (ἔλαβον παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μοι). 

(2) Justin says, “We were taught that the bread and 
wine were the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made 
flesh.” (Afol. 1. c. 66.) This use of the term “flesh” instead 
of “body” in describing the bread of the Eucharist suggests 
John vi. 51-56. 

(7) Professor Drummond notes that Justin, like John (iii. 
14, 15), regards the elevation of the brazen serpent in the 
wilderness as typical of the crucifixion (Afol. i. c. 60; Dial. 
cc. ΟἹ, 94, 131), and in speaking of it says that it denoted 
“salvation to those who flee for refuge to him who sent his 
crucified Son into the world” (Dial. c. g1).* “Now this 
idea of God’s sending his Son into the world occurs in the 
same connection in John iii. 17, and strange as it may ap- 
pear, it is an idea which in the New Testament is peculiar 
to John.” Prof. Drummond further observes that “in the 
four instances in which John speaks of Christ as being sent 
into the world, he prefers ἀποστέλλω, so that Justin’s phrase is 


* Or, as it is expressed in Dzai. c. 94, “salvation to those who believe in hinv who was to die 
through this sign, the cross,’’ which comes nearer to John iii. 15. 


50 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


not entirely coincident with the Johannine. But the use of 
πέμπω [“to send’”’] itself is curious. Except by John, it is 
applied to Christ in the New Testament only twice, whereas 
John uses it [thus] twenty-five times. Justin’s language, 
therefore, in the thought which it expresses, in the selec- 
tion of words, and in its connection, is closely related to 
John’s, and has no other parallel in the New Testament.” 
(Theol. Rev. xiv. 324.) Compare also Deal. c. 140, “accord- 
ing to the will of the Father who sent him,” etc., and Dzad. 
c. 17, “the only blameless and righteous Light sent from 
God to men.” (Prof. Drummond seems to have overlooked 
Gal. iv. 4.) 

(m) Liicke, Otto, Semisch, Keim, Mangold, and Drum- 
mond are disposed to find a reminiscence of John i. 13 in 
Justin’s language where, after quoting from Genesis xlix. 11, 
he says, ‘since his blood was not begotten of human seed, 
but by the will of God” (Dzal. c. 63; comp. the similar 
language Afol. i. 32; Dial. cc. 54, “by the power of God”; 
76). They suppose that Justin referred John i. 13 to Christ, 
following an early reading of the passage, namely, ὃς... 
ἐγεννήθη, “who was born” [97 “begotten’’] instead of “who 
were born.” We find this reading in Irenzus (Her. 111. 16. 
$2; το. 8.2), Tertullian (De Carne (Chrisit ‘cc. το 
Ambrose once, Augustine once, also in Codex Veronensis 
(b) of the Old Latin, and some other authorities. Tertullian 
indeed boldly charges the Valentinians with corrupting the 
text by changing the singular to the plural. Ronsch, whom 
no one will call an “apologist,” remarks, ‘The citation of 
these words... certainly belongs to the proofs that Justin 
Martyr knew the Gospel of John.” * I have noticed this, in 
deference to these authorities, but am not confident’ that 
there is any reference in Justin’s language to John i. 13. 

(z) Justin says (Dial. c. 88), “The Apostles have written” 
that at the baptism of Jesus “as he came up from the water 
the Holy Spirit as a dove lighted upon him.” The descent 
of the Holy Spirit as a dove is mentioned by the Apostles 
Matthew and John (Matt. iii. 16; John i. 32, 33). This is 


* Das neue Testament Tertullians, Leipz. 1871, p. 654. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 51 


the only place in which Justin uses the expression “the 
Apostles have written.” 

(0) Justin says (Deal. c. 103) that Pilate sent Jesus to 
Herod dound. The binding is not mentioned by Luke; but 
if Justin used the Gospel of John, the mistake is easily 
explained through a confusion in memory of Luke xxiii. 7 
with John xvili. 24 (comp. ver. 12); and this seems the most 
natural explanation ; see however Matt. xxvii. 2; Mark xv. 1. 
Examples of such a confusion of different passages repeatedly 
occur in Justin’s quotations from the Old Testament, as also 
of his citing the Old Testament for facts which it does not 
contain.* 

(#) The remark of Justin that the Jews dared to call 
Jesus a magician (comp. Matt. ix. 34; xii. 24) and @ deceiver 
of the people (λαόπλανον) reminds one strongly of John vii. 12; 
see however also Matt. xxvii. 63. — “Through his stripes,” 
says Justin (Dza/. c. 17), “there is healing to those who 
through him come to the Father,” which suggests John xiv. 
6, “No man cometh to the Father but through me”’; but 
the reference is uncertain; comp. Eph. ii. 18, and Heb. vii. 
25 with the similar expression in Dial. c. 43.—So also 
it is not clear that in the προσκυνοῦμεν, λόγῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ τιμῶντες 
(Apol. i. 6) there is any allusion to John iv. 24.+—I pass 
over sundry passages where Bindemann, Otto, Semisch, 
Thoma, Drummond and others have found resemblances 
more or less striking between the language of Justin and 


*See, for example, Afo/. i. 44, where the words in Deut. xxx. 15, 19, are represented as 
addressed to Adawz (comp. Gen. ii. 16, 17); and AZo. i. 60, where Justin refers to Num. xxi. 
8, 9 for various particulars found only in his own imagination. The extraordinary looseness with 
which he quotes Plato here (as elsewhere) may also be noted (see the Tiseus c. 12, p. 36 B, C). 
On Justin’s quotations from the Old Testament, which are largely marked by the same character- 
istics as his quotations from the Gospels, see Credner, Beztrtige u.s.w., vol. ii. (1838); Norton, 
Genuineness etc., 1. 213 ff., and Addit. Notes, p. ccxviii. ff., 2d ed., 1846 (1st ed. 1837); Semisch, Dze 
apost. Denkwiirdigkheiten u.s.w. (1848), p. 239 ff.; Hilgenfeld, Ayzt. Untersuchungen (1850), 
p- 46 ff.; Westcott, Cao, p. 121 ff., 172 ff£., 4th ed. (1875); Sanday, The Gospels ix the Second 
Century (1876), pp. 40 ff., ταῦ ff. 


+ Grimm, however, finds here “‘an unmistakable reminiscence’? of John iv. 24. He thinks 
Justin used λόγῳ for πνεύματι and τιμῶντες for προσκυνοῦντες because πνεῦμα and 
προσκυνοῦμεν immediately precede. (Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1851, p. 691.) But λόγῳ καὶ 
ἀληθείᾳ seem to mean simply, “‘in accordance with reason and truth’’; comp. A/o/, i, 68, cited 
by Otto, also c. 13, μετὰ λόγου τιμῶμεν. 


52 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


John, leaving them to the not very tender mercies of Zeller * 
and Hilgenfeld. + 

(7) Justin’s vindication of Christians for not keeping the 
Jewish Sabbath on the ground that “ God has carried on the 
same administration of the universe during that day as 
during all others” (Dza/. c. 29, comp. c. 23) is, as Mr. Norton 
observes, ‘‘a thought so remarkable, that there can be little 
doubt that he borrowed it from what was said by our Saviour 
when the Jews were enraged at his having performed a 
miracle on the Sabbath:—‘My Father has been working 
hitherto as I am working.’’’ — His argument also against the 
observance of the Jewish Sabbath from the fact that circum- 
cision was permitted on that day may (Dza/. c. 27) have been 
borrowed from John vii. 22, 23. 

(ry) I will notice particularly only one more passage, in 
which Professor Drummond proposes an original and very 
plausible explanation of a difficulty. In the larger Apology 
(c. 35), as he observes, the following words are quoted from 
Isaiah (Ivili. 2), αἰτοῦσι με νῦν κρίσιν, “they now ask of me 
judgment”; and in evidence that this prophecy was fulfilled 
in Christ, Justin asserts, “‘they mocked him, and set him on 
the judgment-seat (ἐκάθισαν ἐπὶ βήματος), and said, Judge for 
us.” This proceeding is nowhere recorded in our Gospels, 
but in John xix. 13 we read, “ Pilate therefore brought Jesus 
out, and sat on the judgment-seat” (καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐπὶ βήματος). 
But the words just quoted in the Greek, the correspondence 
of which with those of Justin will be noticed, admit in them- 
selves the rendering, ‘‘and set Az on the judgment-seat’”’; ἢ 
and what was more natural, as Prof. Drummond remarks, 
than that Justin, in his eagerness to find a fulfilment of the 
prophecy, should take them in this sense? “ He might then 
add the statement that the people said κρῖνον ἡμῖν [‘judge 
for us’] as an obvious inference from the fact of Christ’s 
having been placed on the tribunal, just as in an earlier 
chapter (c. 32) he appends to the synoptic account the circum- 


* Die Gusseren Zeugnisse... des vierten Evang., in the Theol. Fahrbiicher (Tiibingen) 
1845, p. 600 ff. 

| Kritische Untersuchungen u.s.w., Ὁ. 302 ἴ. 

+ Dr. Hort has pointed out to me that Justin uses the word transitively in Dza?. 32, καθίζοντα. 
wrov ἐν δεξιᾷ avTov, comp. Eph. i. 20, though in the New Testament it is commonly intran- 
sitive. Sce a!so its use with reference to judges, I. Cor. vi. 4. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 53 


‘stance that the ass on which Christ rode into Jerusalem was 
bound to a vine, in order to bring the event into connection 
with Genesis xlix. 11.” (Theol. Review, xiv. 328.) 

These evidences of Justin’s use of the Gospel of John are 
strengthened somewhat by an indication, which has been 
generally overlooked, of his use of the First Epistle of John. 
In 1 John iii. 1 we read, according to the text now adoptea 
by the best critics, as Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, 
Alford, Westcott and Hort, “Behold what love the Father 
hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called children 
of God; and we are so’; ἵνα τέκνα θεοῦ κληθῶμεν, καὶ ἐσμέν. 
This addition to the common text, καὶ ἐσμέν, “and we are,” 
is supported by a great preponderance of external evidence. 
Compare now Justin (Dza/. c. 123): “ Weare both called true 
children of God, and we are so”; καὶ θεοῖ; τέκνα ἀληθινὰ καλούμεθα 
καὶ ἐσμέν. The coincidence seems too remarkable to be acci- 
dental. Hilgenfeld takes the same view (Zinleit. in d. N. T., 
p. 69), and so Ewald (Die johan. Schriften, ii. 395, Anm. 4). 

It also deserves to be considered that, as Justin wrote a 
work “ Against all Heresies” (Aol. i. 26), among which he 
certainly included those of Valentinus and Basilides (Dza/. 
ce. 35; cf. Tertull. Adv. Valentinianos, c. 5), he could, hardly 
nave been ignorant of a book which, according to Irenzus, 
the Valentinians used f/exisszme, and to which the Basilidians 
and apparently Basilides himself also appealed (Hippol. Ref 
Wier Wii) 22,27). Credner recognizes the weight of this 
argument.* It can only be met by maintaining what is 
altogether improbable, that merely the /a¢er Valentinians 
and Basilidians made use of the Gospel,—a point which we 
shall examine hereafter. 

In judging of the indications of Justin’s use of the Fourth 
‘Gospel, the passages cited in addition to those which relate 
to his Logos doctrine will strike different persons differently. 
There will be few, however, I think, who will not feel that 
the one first discussed (that relating to the new birth) is in 
itself almost a decisive proof of such a use, and that the one 
relating to John the Baptist (c) is also strong. In regard to 


* Geschichte des neutest. Kanon (1860), p. 15 f.3 comp. pp. 9, 12. 


54 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


not a few others, while the fosszdzlity of accidental agree- 
ment must be conceded, the probability is decidedly against 
this, and the accumulated probabilities form an argument of 
no little weight. It is not then, I believe, too much to say, 
that the strong presumption from the universal reception of 
our four Gospels as sacred books in the time of Irenzeus that 
Justin’s ‘Memoirs of Christ composed by Apostles and their 
companions”’ were the same books, is decidedly confirmed 
by these evidences of his use of the Fourth Gospel. We 
will next consider the further confirmation of this fact 
afforded by writers who flourished between the time of 
Justin and Irenzeus, and then notice some objections to the 
view which has been presented. 

The most weighty testimony is that of Tatian, the Assyr- 
ian, a disciple of Justin. His literary activity may be placed 
at about A.D. 155-170 (Lightfoot). In his “ Address to the 
Greeks” he repeatedly quotes the Fourth Gospel, though 
without naming the author, in one case using the expression 
(τὸ εἰρημένον) Which is several times employed in the New 
Testament (eg. Acts 11. 16; Rom. iv. 18) in introducing a 
quotation from the Scriptures; see his Ovat. ad Gre@c. α. 13, 
« And this then is that which hath been said, The darkness 
comprehendeth [ov overcometh] not the light” (John i. 5); 
see also c. 19 (John i. 3); ὦ. 4 (John iv. 24).* Still more 
important is the fact that he composed a Harmony of our 
Four Gospels which he called the Dzatessaron (1.6. “the 
Gospel made out of Four”). This fact is attested by Euse- 
bius (Hist. Eccl. iv. 29), Epiphanius (Her. xlvi. 1), who, 
however, writes from hearsay, and Theodoret, who in his 
work on Heresies (Her. Fad. i. 20) says that he found more 
than two hundred copies of the book held in esteem in his 
diocese, and substituted for it copies of our Four Gospels. 


* Even Zeller does not dispute that Tatian quotes the Fourth Gospel, and ascribed it to the 
Apostle John. (Theol. Fahrd. 1847, p. 158.) Cf. Volkmar, Ursprung, u.s.w., Ὁ. 35- 

+ An expression used by Eusebius (οὐκ οἱ δ᾽ ὅπως, literally, “1 know not how’’) has been 
misunderstood by many as implying that he had not seen the work; but Lightfoot has shown 
conclusively that this inference is wholly unwarranted. It only implies that the plan of the work 
seemed strange. to him. See Contemporary Review for May, 1877, p. 1136, where Lightfoot 
cites 26 examples of this use of the phrase from the work of Origen against Celsus, 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 55 


He tells us that Tatian, who is supposed to have prepared 
the Harmony after he became a Gnostic Encratite, had “cut 
away the genealogies and such other passages as show the 
Lord to have been born of the seed of David after the flesh.” 
But notwithstanding this mutilation, the work seems to have 
been very popular in the orthodox churches of Syria as a 
convenient compendium. The celebrated Syrian Father, 
Ephraem, the deacon of Edessa, who died a.p. 373, wrote a 
commentary on it, according to Dionysius Bar-Salibi, who 
flourished in the last part of the twelfth century. Bar-Salibi 
was well acquainted with the work, citing it in his own 
Commentary on the Gospels, and distinguishing it from the 
Diatessaron of Ammonius, and from a later work by Elias 
Salamensis, also called Aphthonius. He mentions that it 
began with John 1. 1 1—‘“‘In the beginning was the Word.” 
(See Assemani, Bzblioth. Orient. ii. 158 ff.) Besides Eph- 
raem, Aphraates, an earlier Syrian Father (A.D. 337) appears 
to have used it (fom. i. p. 13 ed. Wright); and in the Daoc- 
trine of Addat, an apocryphal Syriac work, written probably 
not far from the middle of the third century, which purports 
to give an account of the early history of Christianity at 
Edessa, the people are represented as coming together “to 
the prayers of the service, and to [the reading of] the Old 
Testament and the New of the Diatessaron.” * The Doc- 
trine of Addai does not name the author of the Diatessaron 
thus read; but the facts already mentioned make the pre- 
sumption strong that it was Tatian’s. A scholion on Cod. 
72 of the Gospels cites ‘Tatian’s Gospel” for a remarkable 
reading of Matt. xxvii. 49 found in many ancient MSS. ; and 


*In Cureton’s Ancient Syriac Documents (Lond. 1864) the text, published froma MS. in 
the British Museum, is here corrupt, reading Dztoxvox, a word without meaning; comp. Pratten’s 
Syriac Documents (1871), p. 25, note, in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. xx. Cureton 
conjectured that the true reading was Dzatessaroz (see his note, p. 158), and his conjecture is 
confirmed by the St. Petersburg MS. published by Dr. George Phillips, 716 Doctrine of Addai, 
London, 1876; see his note, p. 34f. Cureton’s Syriac text (p. 15), as well as his translation 
(p. 15), reads Ditonron, not Ditornon, as Lightfoot, Pratten, and Phillips erroneously state, 
being misled by a misprint in Cureton’s note. Phillips gives the reading correctly in the note to 
his Syriac text (p. 36). Moesinger, in the work described below, is also misled, spelling the word 
Diathurnun (Pref. p.iv). The difference between Ditoxron and Diatessaron in the Syriac is 
very slight, affecting only a single letter. 


56 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


it is also cited for a peculiar reading of Luke vii. 42.* So 
far the evidence is clear, consistent, and conclusive; but on 
the ground of a confusion between Tatian’s Harmony and 
that of Ammonius on the part of a Syrian writer of the 
thirteenth century (Gregorius Abulpharagius or Bar-He- 
braeus), and of the two fersous by a still later writer, Ebed- 
Jesu, both of which confusions can be traced to a misunder- 
standing of the language of Bar-Salibi, and for other reasons 
equally weak, ἡ the fact that Tatian’s work was a Harmony 
of our Four Gospels has been questioned by some German 
critics, and of course by Supernatural Religion. But the 
whole subject has been so thoroughly discussed and its ob- 
scurities so well cleared up by Bishop Lightfoot, in an article 
in the Contemporary Review for May, 1877, that the question 
may be regarded as settled. t Lightfoot’s view is confirmed 
by the recent publication of Ephraem’s Commentary on the 


*See Tischendorf, V.7. Gr. ed. 8va, on Matt. xxvii. 49, and Scholz, V.7. G»., vol. i, 
p. exlix., and p. 243, note x. 


+ Such as that Victor of Capua (A.D. 545) says that it was called Diafente (z.e., ‘‘ made out of 
five’’). But this is clearly a slip of the pen of Victor himself, or a mistake of some scribe; for, as 
Hilgenfeld (Zindezt. p. 79, note) and Lightfoot remark, Victor is simply reporting Azzsedius’s 
account of it, and not only does Eusebius say that Tatian called it the Diatessaron, but Victor 
himself has just described it as ‘‘ wane ex quatuor.’? The strange mistake, for it can be nothing 
else, may possibly be accounted for by the fact that Dzatessaron and Diapente being both musical 
terms (cf. Plut. Qwest. Conviv. iil. 9, ὃ 1; De Mus. cc. 22,23; Macrob. in Somn. Sczp. i. 6, 
S$ 43, 443 i. 1, §§ 15-25; Vitruv. v. 4, §§ 7,8; Martian. Capella, ix., §§ 950 ff; Censorinus, 
x. 6; Philo, De Opif. Mundi, c. 15, and Miiller’s note, p. 214 ff), one might naturally recall the 
other, and lead to an unconscious substitution on the part of the author or of some absent-minded 
copyist. Such slips of the pen, or heterographies, are not uncommon. To take examples from 
two books which I have just been using: Zacagni, Collectanea Mon. Vet. p. 536, note 5, says 
“Anno Christi guingentesimo quinquagesimo octavo”? when he means “ guadringentesimo”’; 
Charteris, Cazonicity (Edin. 1880), p. xlv., note, no. 4, says ‘‘ Eusebius’? for “‘ Papias,” and, in 
quoting Lardner (242d. p. 42, note 1, end), substitutes ‘‘ Vew Testament ”’ for “Οὐ Testament’. 
Under no circumstances can any inference about the composition of the work be drawn from this 
Diapente, for Victor derives his information from Eusebius, and not only do all the Greek MSS. 
in the passage referred to read Déatessaron, but this reading is confirmed by the very ancient, 
probably contemporary, Syriac version of Eusebius, preserved in a MS. of the sixth century, and 
by the Latin version of Rufinus, made a century and a half before Victor wrote. (See Lightfoot, 
p. 1143.) The mistake ascribed to the Syriac lexicographer Bar-Bahlul is proved to be due to an 
interpolator. (See Lightfoot, p. 1139, note.) The statement of Epiphanius, the most untrustworthy 
and blundering of the Fathers, that ‘‘it is called by some the Gospel according to the Hebrews”’ 
(Her. xlvi. 1), if it had any foundation beyond a mere guess of the writer, may have originated 
from the omission of the genealogies, which were omitted also in one form of the Gospel accord- 
ing to the Hebrews (Epiph. Her. xxx. 13, 14). The supposition that it was that Gospel con- 
tradicts all our information about the two works except the circumstance just mentioned; and 
that it had additions from that Gospel is a conjecture for which we have not a particle of evidence. 
(See Lightfoot, p. 11413 Lipsius in Smith and Wace’s Dict, of Christian Biog. ii. 714.) 


+To Lightfoot’s article 1 am much indebted. The other writers who treat of the subject most 
fully are Credner, Beztrége, u.s.w., i. 437-451, who has thrown more darkness upon it than 
anybody else; Daniel, Zatianus der Afpologet (Halle, 1837), pp. 87-111, who has refuted 
Credner’s arguments; Semisch, Tatzaxi Diatessaron, Vratisl. 1856; Hilgenfeld, Ezzleit. in d. 
N.T. (1875), pp. 75-793 Szfernatural Religion, vol. ii., pp. 148-159, 7th ed.; and E. B. 
Nicholson, The Gosfel according to the Hebrews (London, 1879), p. 16 f., and pp. 126-133, who 
does not appear to have seen Lightfoot’s article, but exposes independently many of the errors 
and fallacies of Supernatural Religion. See also Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels, iii. 292 ff. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 5 


Diatessaron, to which I have already had occasion to refer. * 
This exists only in an Armenian version of the Syriac, made, 
it is supposed, in the fifth century. The Armenian text was 
published in the second volume of the collected Works of 
St. Ephraem in Armenian, printed at Venice in 1836 (4 vols. 
8vo); but Aucher’s Latin translation of the Commentary, 
revised and edited by G. Moesinger, who compared it with 
another Armenian manuscript, first appeared at Venice in 
1876, and the work has hitherto been almost unnoticed by 
scholars. It should be observed that Ephraem’s commen- 
tary is only on select passages of the Harmony, unless the 
work which has come down to us is merely an abridgment. 
But there seems to be no’ ground for questioning the gen- 
uineness of the work ascribed to Ephraem ; and little or no 
ground for doubting that the Harmony on which he is com- 
menting is Tatian’s, in accordance with the account of 
Dionysius Bar-Salibi.{ It agrees with what we know of 
Tatian’s in omitting the genealogies and in beginning with 
the first verse of the Gospel of John. Further, the character 
of the text, so far as we can judge of it from a translation of 
a translation, is such as to lend confirmation to the view that 
it is Tatian’s. It presents some very ancient various read- 
ings which accord remarkably with those of Justin Martyr 
and other early writers, and with the Curetonian Syriac 
where it differs from the later Peshito. || 


* See Note A, no. 4. 

+The volume is entitled: Avangelit concordantis Expositio facta a Sancto Ephraemo 
Doctore Syro. In Latinum translataa R. P. Foanne Baptista Aucher Mechitarista cujus 
Versionem emendavit, Adnotationibus illustravit et edidit Dr. Georgius Moesinger. 
Venetiis, Libraria PP. Mechitaristarum in Monasterio 5. Lazari. 1876. 8vo. pp. Xii., 292. 
Lipsius, art. σοφοῖς, Apocryphal, in Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christian Biog., vol. ii. 
(London, 1880), p. 713, is not even aware that the Armenian translation has been published. 


+See Moesinger, wz supra, Pref. p. ii. ff. 


|| We find, for example, the very ancient punctuation or construction which ends the sentence 
in John i. 3 with οὐδὲ ἕν, ‘not even one thing,” connecting ὃ γέγονεν with ver. 4. (See 
Moesinger’s edition, p. 5.) This accords with the citation of the passage by Tatian (Oraz. ad 
Gre@c. c. 19). In Matt. i. 25, we read ‘‘sancte (07 in sanctitate) habitabat cum ea’’ (Moesinger, 
pp. 23, 25, 26); so the Curetonian Syriac. In Matt. viii. το (p. 74), it reads, ‘‘ Moz zz aliguo in 
Israél tantam fidem inveni,’? with Cod. Vaticanus(B), several of the best cursives, the MSS. 
agt.kqof the Old Latin, the Curetonian Syriac, Sahidic, Coptic, and Athiopic versions, the 
Harclean Syriac in the margin, Augustine once, and the ‘Opus Imperfectum’’ on Matt. In 
Matt. xi. 27 (Moesinger, pp. 117, 216), it agrees with Justin, the Clementine Homilies, and the 
Gnostics in Irenzus, in the transposition of the clauses relating to the Father and the Son. (See 


᾿ 


58 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


We may regard it then, I conceive, as an established fact 
that Tatian’s Diatessaron was a Harmony of our four Gospels. 
So difficult and laborious a work would hardly have been un- 
dertaken, except to meet a want which had been widely felt. 
It implies that the four books used were recognized by those 
for whom it was intended as authoritative, and as possessing 
equal authority. Can we then believe that Tatian’s Harmony 
represented a different set of books from the “ Memoirs called 
Gospels” of his master Justin, which were read at the meet- 
ings for public worship in churches all over the Christian 
world as the authentic records of the life and teaching of 
Christ, the production of Apostles and their companions ? 
Does not Tatian’s unquestionable use of the Gospel of John 
in particular confirm the strong presumption from other facts 
that this Gospel was included in the “ Memoirs ” used by his 
master and by Christians generally twenty years before ? 

This presumption receives further confirmation from other 
testimonies to the existence and use of the Fourth Gospel 
between the time of Justin Martyr and Irenzeus. 

The treatise or fragment Ox the Resurrection, which Otto 
with many others ascribes to Justin, if not genuine, probably 
belongs to this period. Inc. 1 we read, “The Logos of God, 
who was [or became] his Son, came to us clothed in flesh, 
revealing both himself and the Father, giving to us in him- 
self the resurrection from the dead and the eternal life which 
follows.” The allusions here to John i. 1, 14; xiv. 9; xi. 25, 
26, seem unmistakable. So inc. 9, “He permitted them to 
handle him, and showed in his hands the marks of the nails,” 
we have a reference to John xx. 25, 27, as well as to Luke 
mxlve 20: 

Melito, bishop of Sardis (cz a.p. 165), in a fragment from 


Note A, under no. 4.) In Matt. xix. 17, the text is given in Ephraem’s commentary in different 
forms, but it seems to be, substantially, ‘‘ Unus tantum est bonus, Pater (ov Deus Pater) qui in 
celis’? (Moesinger, pp. 169, 170, 173); similarly, Justin Martyr once (Dza/. c. 101), the Naassenes 
in Hippolytus (Adv. Her. v. 7, p. 102), the Marcosians in Irenzus (er. i. 20. §2), and the 
Clementine Homilies (xviii. 1, 3); see, for the numerous variations of reading here, Tischendorf’s 
N.T. Gr. ed. 8va, iz loc. Notice also the reading of John vii. 8 (‘‘4Voz ascendo,’? Moesinger, 
p. 167); John iii. 13, quoted without the last clause of ¢ext. receft. (pp. 187, 189, comp. 168); 
John x. 8 (ante me, Ὁ. 200); Luke xxii. 44 (‘‘et factus est sudor ejus ut gutta sanguinis,”? p. 2353 
comp. Justin, Diad. c. 103). 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 59 


his work on the Incarnation preserved by Anastasius Sinaita, 
speaks of Christ as “giving proof to us of his deity by signs 
[wrought] in the three years after his baptism, and of his 
humanity in the thirty years before his baptism.” * This 
assignment of a duration of three years to his ministry must 
have been founded on the Gospel of John, which mentions 
iimes Eassovers) (11. 12; Vi. 4; ΧΙ 55) besides, the “feast, of 
the Jews”’ referred to in John vy. 1. 

Claudius Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia (cz. 
A.D. 166), in a treatise on the Paschal Festival, refers to the 
apparent difference between John and the Synoptic Gospels 
as to the time of the death of Jesus. Apollinaris, relying 
on the Gospel of John, held that it was on the day on which 
the paschal lamb was killed, the 14th of Nisan; his oppo- 
nents, appealing to the Gospel of Matthew, maintained that 
it was on the day following. Both Gospels were evidently 
received as authoritative by both parties.t He also refers 
in the same work to the piercing of the side of Jesus and 
the effusion of water and blood, mentioned only by John 
(xix. 34).} 

The Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons in Gaul 
to those of Asia and Phrygia, giving an account of their per- 
secutions (A.D. 177), quotes the following as the words of the 
Lord: “There shall come a time in which whosoever killeth 
you shall think that he is offering a religious service to God,” 
λατρείαν προσφέρειν τῷ θῷ. The expression in the last clause 
is the same which is inadequately rendered in the common 
version “doeth God service”’ (John xvi. 2).|| The use of the 
word παράκλητος a little before in the Epistle, “having the 


*See Anast. Sinait. Hodeg. or Vie Dux, c. 13, in Migne, Patrol. Gr. |xxxix. col. 229, or 
Melito, Frag. vi. in Otto, Corp. Afol. Christ., vol. ix. (1872), p. 416. 

+Chronicon Paschale, vol. i., pp. 13, 14, ed. Dindorf; Apollinaris in Routh’s Red. sacra, 
ed. alt. (1846), i. 160; or Otto, Corp. A fol. Christ., ix. 486 f. 

ἃ Ibid. p. 14, ed. Dindorf; Routh, zéd. p. 161; Otto, wbz supra. For a full view of the 
evidence of Melito and Apollinaris, and of the considerations which give it weight, see Lightfoot’s 
article, “‘The Later School of St. John,’ in the Contemporary Review for February, 1876, 
xxvii. 471 ff. 

| The letter is preserved in large part by Eusebius, 7st. Ecci. v. cc. 1-4. It may be con- 
sulted conveniently in Routh, Red/. sacra, i. 295 ff., ed. alt. For the quotation, see Epist. C. 45 
Routh, p. 300; Euseb. v. 1. ὃ 15. 


60 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Paraclete within him,” also suggests the Gospel of John; 
comp. John xiv. 16, 17.* 

Athenagoras the Athenian (cév. a.D. 176), in his Plea for 
Christians addressed to M. Aurelius and Commodus, speak- 
ing of “the Logos of God the Father,” says that “through 
him all things were made” (δ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἐγένετο), the Father 
and the Son being one; and the Son being in the Father, 
and the Father in the Son”’; language which seems evidently 
founded. on. John i, 3;' x) 30; 38: “xiv. 10, 11); - xvii. 21, 227q 

Theophilus, bishop of Antioch a.p. 169-181, in his work 
in defence of Christianity addressed to Autolycus (A.D. 180), 
says, “The Holy Scriptures teach us, and all who were 
moved by the Spirit, among whom John says, ‘In the begin- 
ning was the word [or Logos], and the Word was with God.’” 
He proceeds to quote John 1. 3.1 

The Muratorian Canon (czy, A.D. 170), as has already been 
mentioned, ascribes the Gospel to the Apostle John, and 
gives an account of the circumstances under which it was 
written, fabulous doubtless in some of its details, but having 
probably a basis of truth. || 

Celsus, the celebrated heathen adversary of Christianity 
(A.D. 178, Keim), professedly founds his statements concern- 
ing the history of Christ on “the writings of his disciples ”;** 
and his accounts are manifestly based on our four Gospels,tf 


* Epist. c. 3; Routh, p. 298; Euseb. v. 1. §10. In the same section we have other expres- 
sions apparently borrowed from John xv. 13 and x Johniii. 16. See, further, Lightfoot’s article, 
“The Churches of Gaul,” in the Contemp. Review for August, 1876, xxviii. 405 ff. An English 
translation of the Fragments of Melito and Apollinaris, and of the Epistle of the Churches of 
Vienne and Lyons, will be found appended to vol. ii. of Lactantius, in vol. xxii. of the Ante- 
Nicene Christian Library. 


t+ Suppl. pro Christ. c. το, p. 46, ed. Otto. 
$Ad Autol. ii. 22, pp. 118-120, ed. Otto. 


| See on this subject Lightfoot in the Contemp. Review for October, 1875, xxvi. 835 ff.; 
Matthew Arnold, God and the Bible, p. 248 (Eng. ed.); and Westcott, ‘‘ Introd. to the Gospel of 
St. John,” in The Holy Bible... with... Commentary, etc., ed. by F. C. Cook, V.T7., vol. ii. 
p. Χχχν. ; alsohis Caxox of the N. T., sth ed., p. 214 ff. 


** Origen, Ceds. ii. 13, 74; comp. 32, 53. He quotes these writings as possessing among 
Christians unquestioned authority: ““We need,’’ says he, “πὸ other witness; for you fall upon 
your own swords”? (ii. 74). 


tt See fully in Lardner, Testimonies of Ancient Heathens, ch. xviii., Works, vii. 210-278; 
Kirchhofer, Quellensammlung zur Gesch. des neutest. Canons (1844), pp. 330-349; Keim, 
Celsus’ Wahres Wort (1873), pp. 223-230. Comp. Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels, i. 142 
ff.; E. A. Abbott, art. Gosfels, in the Excyc. Britannica, oth ed., x. 818. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 61 


though he does not name their authors. He refers to sev- 
eral circumstances peculiar to the narrative of John, as the 
blood which flowed from the body of Jesus at his crucifixion,* | 
and the fact that Christ “after his death arose, and showed 
the marks of his punishment, and how his hands had been 
pierced.” + He says that “some relate that one, and some 
that two angels came to the sepulchre, to announce that 
Jesus was risen.” + Matthew and Mark speak of but one 
angel, Luke and John mention two. He says that the Jews 
“challenged Jesus zz the temple to produce some clear proof 
that he was the Son of God.” || He appears also to allude to 
fievery of Jesus,“ thirst,” recorded only by John.** Re- 
ferring to a declaration of Jesus, he satirically exclaims,. 
“© Light and Truth!” designations of Christ characteristic 
of John’s Gospel.ff He says that Jesus “after rising from 
the dead showed himself secretly to one woman only, and 
to his boon companions.”t¢ Here the first part of the 
statement seems to refer to John’s account of the appear- 
ance of Christ to Mary Magdalene. 

The heretical writings of this period clearly recognize the 
Fourth Gospel. Notwithstanding several apparent quotations 
or allusions, it was formerly maintained that the author of 
the Clementine Homilies could not possibly have used this 
Gospel, it being in such opposition to his opinions. But 
since the discovery of the Codex Ottobonianus, containing 
the missing portion of the book (first published by Dressel 
in his edition of the Homilies in 1853), there has been a 
change of view. That portion contains so clear a quotation 
of John ix. 1-3 (Hom. xix. 22) that Hilgenfeld has handsomely 
retracted his denial ;|||| and, though Scholten and Supernatu- 


* Origen, Ces. ii. 36, also i. 66; comp. John xix. 34. 

+ Origen, Ces. ii. 55, 59; John xx. 25, 27. 

+ Origen, Ceds. v. 52, 56; John xx. 123 comp. Luke xxiv. 4, 23. 

|] Origen, CeZs. i. 67; John ii. 18; comp. x. 23, 24. (Matt. xxi. 23.) 

** Origen, Cels. ii. 373 John xix. 28. 

+t Origen, Ceds. ii. 49; John viii. 123 ix. 53 xii. 463 xiv. 6. 

tt Origen, Ceds. ii. 70; John xx. 14-18. Compare, however, the Addition to Mark, xvi. 9. 


IIl| Bzndect. ix αἴ. N.T., p. 43 £., note; comp. Matthew Arnold, God and the Bible, p. 277 
Volkmar also recognizes the use of the Fourth Gospel here, but only as “‘an unapostolic zou” 


62 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


val Religion still resist the evidence, there can be little doubt 
about the final verdict of impartial criticism. Besides this 
passage and that about the new birth,* the Gospel of John 
seems to be used twice in Hom. 111. 52, once in a free quota- 
tion: “Iam the gate of life; he that entereth in through 
me entereth into life, for there is no other teaching that 
can save” (comp. John x. 9, 10); and again, “ My sheep hear 
my voice” (comp. John x. 27). 

More important, and beyond any dispute, is the evidence 
of the use of the Fourth Gospel as the work of the Apostle 
John by the Gnostics of this period. Ptolemy, the disciple 
of Valentinus, in his Epistle to Flora, preserved by Epipha- 
nius (Her. xxxiii. 3), quotes John i. 3 as what “the Apostle 
says”; and, in the exposition of the Ptolemzo-Valentinian 
system given by Irenzus, a long passage is quoted from 
Ptolemy or one of his school in which he is represented as 
saying that “John, the disciple of the Lord, supposes a 
certain Beginning,” etc., citing and commenting on John i. 
I-5, 14, 18, in support of the Valentinian doctrine of the 
Ogdoad.t The Valentinians, indeed, as we are told by 
Irenzeus elsewhere, used the Gospel of John most abundantly 
(Her. iii. 11. § 7). Heracleon, another disciple of Valen- 
tinus, wrote a commentary on it, large extracts from which 
are preserved by Origen. || The book commonly cited as 
Excerpta Theodoti or Doctrina Orientalis, a compilation (with 
criticisms) from the writings of Theodotus and other Gnostics 
of the second century, ascribed to Clement of Alexandria and 


(Ursprung uns. Evv., 1866, p. 62 f., 134f.). The question is well treated by Sanday, The 
Gospels in the Second Century, pp. 293 ff. It is to be observed that the incident of ‘ ¢Ze man 
blind from his birth’’ is introduced in the Homilies (xix. 22) as it isin the Apostolical Constitu- 
tions (v. 7. § 17) with the use of the definite article, as something well-known to the readers of the 
book. How does this happen, if the writer is taking it from ‘‘an unapostolic zovus?’ 9. Drum- 
mond and Sanday have properly called attention to this use of the article. 

* Flom. xi. 263; see above, pp. 29, 31. 

+ I follow the text of Dindorf in his edition of Epiphanius, vol. ii., pp. 199, 200, who reads 
τά τε πάντα for ἅτε πάντα and γεγονέναι οὐδέν for γέγονεν οὐδέν. 

tIren. Her. 1. 8. ὃ 5. The old Latin version of Irenzus, which is often more trustworthy 
than the Greek as preserved by Epiphanius, ends the section referred to with the words: 
Et Ptolemeus quidem ita. For the Greek, generally, see Epiphanius, Wer. xxxi. 27, in 
Dindorf’s edition, which gives the best text. 

|| These are collected in Grabe’s Szcilegium SS. Patrum, etc., ii. 85-117, 237, ed. alt. 
(1714), and in Stieren’s Irenzus, i. 938-971. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 63 


commonly printed with his works, contains many extracts 
from one or more writers of the Valentinian school, in which 
the Gospel of John is quoted and commented upon as the 
work of the Apostle. (See particularly cc. 6-8, also 3, 9, 
ΠΟ 7, 10, 20, 410.45, ΟἹ, 62, 65, 73.) 

The literature of the third quarter of the second century 
is fragmentary, but we have seen that it attests the use of 
the Fourth Gospel in the most widely separated regions of 
the Christian world, and by parties diametrically opposed in 
sentiment. The fact that this Gospel was used by those to 
whose opinions it was or seemed to be adverse—by the 
author of the Clementine Homilies, by Quartodecimans and 
their opponents, and especially by the Gnostics, who were 
obliged to wrest its language so violently to accommodate it 
to their systems—shows that to have won such a reception at 
that time it must have come down from an earlier period 
with commanding authority. Its use in Tatian’s Diatessaron 
also makes this evident. It must have belonged to those 
“Memoirs” to which Justin appealed fifteen or twenty years 
before, and which were recognized by the Christians gen- 
erally of his day as the authentic sources of information 
respecting the life and teaching of Christ. The particular 
evidence we have been examining, limited as it is by the 
scantiness of the literature, strengthens the general conclu- 
sion before drawn from the universal reception of. our four 
Gospels in the time of Irenzeus, and from the direct indica- 
tions of the use of the Fourth Gospel.by Justin. The evi- 
dence that this Gospel was one of his “Memoirs” is thus 
cumulative, and, unless it is countervailed by some very 
strong objections, must be regarded as decisive. Let us 
then consider the main objections which have been urged 
against this conclusion. 

The first is that, according to Supernatural Religion, ‘The 
description which Justin gives of the manner of the teaching 
of Jesus excludes the idea that he knew the Fourth Gospel. 
‘Brief and concise were the sentences uttered by him: for 
he was no Sophist, but his word was the power of God,’ 


64 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


No one could for a moment assert that this applies to the 
long and artificial discourses of the Fourth Gospel.” * 

Here we may observe, in the first place, that Justin’s Greek 
is not quite accurately translated.+ The word rendered 
“sentences” is without the article: and Prof. Drummond 
translates the clause more correctly, “Brief and concise say- 
ings have proceeded from him,” remarking that “Justin is 
describing not the universal, but only the prevailing and 
prominent character of his teaching.’ + And it is not a 
description of the teaching in the Fourth Gospel in particu- 
lar, but a general statement, not inconsistent with the fact 
that the character of the discourses in the Fourth Gospel 
is in some respects peculiar. But, as to “brief and concise 
sayings” of Jesus, Professor Drummond, in glancing over 
the first thirteen chapters of John, finds no less than fifty- 
three to which this description would apply. He observes 
that “the book contains in reality very little connected 
argumentation; and even the longest discourses consist 
rather of successive pearls of thought strung on a thread 
of association than of consecutive discussion and _ proof.” || 
But it may be greatly doubted whether Justin means here 
by βραχεῖς λόγοι, as Tayler supposes, simply “short, aphoristic 
maxims.” The reference to the Sophists, that is, rhetori- 
cians, leads one rather to suppose that Justin is contrasting 
the λόγοι, “discourses,” of Christ in general with the long, 
artificial, argumentative, and rhetorical λόγοι of the Sophists 
among his earlier or later contemporaries, such as Dion 
Chrysostomus, Herodes Atticus, Polemo and Aristides, 
whom Philostratus describes in his biographies. As for 
brevity, the discourses in the Fourth Gospel are generally 
short: the longest continuous discourse there recorded 


* Sup. Rel., ii. 314; similarly J. J. Tayler, A Attempt to ascertain the Character of the 
Fourth Gospel (1867), p. 64; Davidson, 7ηέγοα. to the Study of the N.T. (1868), ii. 386, and 
many others. 

tApol. i. 14: βραχεῖς δὲ καὶ σύντομοι παρ᾽ αὑτοῦ λόγοι γεγόνασιν. It may be 
thought, perhaps, that οἱ has dropped out after σύντομοι, which might easily have happened. 
But, even if the article had been used, the argument would be worthless. Such general proposi- 
tions are seldom to be taken without qualification. 


+ Theol. Review, July, 1877, xiv. 330. 
|| Zazd. pp. 330, 331. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 65 


would hardly occupy five minutes in the reading. The 
Sermon on the Mount as given by Matthew is much longer 
than any unbroken discourse in John. But what charac- 
terizes the teaching of Christ in the Gospels, as Justin inti- 
mates, is the divine authority and spiritual power with which 
. he speaks ; and this is not less striking in the Fourth Gospel 
than in the Synoptists. (Comp. Matt. vii. 29; Luke iv. 32; 
John vii. 26, 46.) 

A more plausible objection is this. If Justin knew and 
used the Fourth Gospel at all, why has he not used it more? 
Why has he never appealed to it in proof of his doctrine of 
the Logos and of the pre-existence of Christ? He has ex- 
pressly quoted but one saying of Christ recorded in it, and 
one of John the Baptist, and has referred to but one incident 
peculiar to it, unless we adopt the view of Professor Drum- 
mond respecting his reference to John xix. 13. (See above, 
p. 52.) His account of Christ’s life and teaching cor- 
responds substantially with that given in the Synoptic Gos- 
pels, which he follows (so it is affirmed) where they differ, 
or seem to differ, from John. Albrecht Thoma, in an article 
in Hilgenfeld’s Zeztschrift, comes to the conclusion, after a 
minute examination of the subject, that Justin “knows and 
uses almost every chapter of the Logos-Gospel, and in part 
very fully.” But such considerations as 1 have mentioned 
convince him, notwithstanding, that he did not regard it as 
apostolic, or historically authentic. He finds Justin’s rela- 
tion to the Apostle Paul very similar. Justin shows himself 
well acquainted with Paul’s writings, he often follows him in 
his citations from the Old Testament where they differ from 
the Septuagint, he borrows largely his thoughts and illustra- 
tions and language, but never quotes him expressly and by 
name; and so Mr. Thoma thinks he cannot have regarded 
him as an Apostle.* 

This argument forgets the nature of Justin’s writings. 
Were he addressing a Christian community in defence of his 


*See the article, ‘‘Justins literarisches Verhiiltniss zu Paulus und zum Johannes-Evan- 
gelium,” in Hilgenfeld’s Zedtschrift filr wissensch. Theologie, 1875, xviii. 383 ff., 490 ff. The 
quotation in the text is from p. 553. 


66 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


doctrine of the pre-existence and subordinate deity of Christ 
in opposition to the Ebionites, these objections would be 
valid. But he was writing for unbelievers. In his Apolo- 
gies addressed to the Emperor and Senate and people of 
Rome, he cannot quote the Christian writings in drect proof 
of the truth of Christian doctrines, and makes no attempt to 
do so. In giving the account which he does of the teaching 
of Christ, he draws mainly from the Sermon on the Mount, 
and in his sketch of the Gospel history follows mainly the 
guidance of Matthew, though also using Luke, and in two 
or three instances Mark. That is exactly what was to be 
expected. Justin’s chief argument is derived from the fulfil- 
ment of Old Testament prophecies, and in this he ‘natu- 
rally follows the Gospel of Matthew, which is distinguished 
from the others by its reference to them. Where Matthew’s 
citations differ from the Alexandrine version of the Old 
Testament, Justin often appears to borrow from Matthew 
rather than from the Septuagint.* The discourses of Christ 
as they are given in the Synoptic Gospels were obviously 
much better fitted for his purpose of presenting to heathens 
a general view of Christ’s teaching than those in the Gospel 
of John. Similar remarks apply to the Dialogue with 
Trypho the Jew. Here Dr. Davidson thinks it strange that 
Justin should not have quoted the prologue of the Fourth 
Gospel, and such a passage as ‘“‘ Before Abraham was, I am,” 
in proof of Christ’s divinity and pre-existence.f But the 
Jew with whom Justin was arguing would not have accepted 
an assertion of John or a declaration of Christ as a proof of 
its truth. So inthe case of Paul’s writings. Paul was not 
so popular among the Jews that his name would recommend 
the arguments or illustrations which Justin borrows from 
him ; still less could Justin quote his Epistles in proof of 
doctrine in a discussion with a Jew, or in a defence of Chris- 
tianity addressed to heathens. 


*See Semisch, Die apost. Denkwiirdigkeiten u.s.w., pp. 110-120; examples are also given 
by Norton, Gexuzneness, etc., vol. i. Addit. Notes, pp. ccxx., ccxxil., cccxxxil. f. 


+ Davidson’s Introd. to the Study of the N. T. (1868), ii. 385. Compare Volkmar, Ueber 


Fustin den Mirtyrer u.s.w. (Ziirich, 1853), p. 20f.; Ursprung uns. Evang. (1866), p. 107 f. 
Thoma, «62 supra, p. 556. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 67 


The correctness of this explanation is confirmed by an 
indisputable fact. Justin certainly believed that the Apostle 
John was the author of the Apocalypse; Supernatural Relig- 
zon (i. 295) thinks that this was the only book of the New 
Testament which he regarded as “inspired”; Thoma (p. 563, 
note I) even supposes that it was read in the churches in 
Justin’s time together with the ‘“‘Memoirs”’ and the Prophets 
of the Old Testament. How, then, does it happen that he 
has not a single quotation from this book, which calls Christ 
“the Word [Logos] of God” (Rev. xix. 13), “the beginning 
of the creation of God” (iii. 14), ‘“‘the first and the last and 
imelimine one (1. 17, comp. ii. 8), “the searcher of the-reins 
and hearts” (ii. 23), and, apparently (though according to 
Alford and Westcott not really), “the Alpha and the Omega, 
the beginning and the end” (xxii. 13)? In speaking of the 
different opinions among Christians about the resurrection, 
Justin once refers to the book as agreeing with the prophets 
in predicting the Millennium, and mentions the name of the 
author (Dial. c. 81; the passage will be cited below); but, as 
I have said, he nowhere gwotes this work, which he regarded 
as inspired, apostolic, prophetic, though it contains so much 
which might seem to favor his view of the person of Christ. 
Were it not for that almost accidental reference to it, it 
might be plausibly argued that he was ignorant of its exist- 
ence. In one place in the Dialogue with Trypho (c. 18), 
Justin half apologizes for subjoining ‘some brief sayings ” 
of the Saviour to the words of the Prophets, on the ground 
that Trypho had acknowledged that he had read the précepts 
of Christ “in the so-called Gospel” (Dial. c. 10). But he 
does not introduce them there as arguments. 

It should be observed, further, that the course pursued by 
Justin in abstaining from quoting the Gospels in proof of 
doctrines, and in not mentioning the Evangelists by name, 
in writings addressed to unbelievers, is simply that which 
was followed, with slight exceptions, by a long line of Chris- 
tian Apologists from his time down to that of Eusebius.* 


*See Norton, Gen. of the Gospels, i. 218 ff.; Westcott, Canon of the N.T., p. 116 ΤΕ} 
E. S. Ffoulkes, art. Fathers, in Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christian Biog., ii. 456 f. 


68 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


It may still be said that this applies only to quotations 
made in proof of doctrines. It may be asked, and there is 
some force in the question, Why has not Justin used John 
as he has used the Synoptic Gospels, as an authority for his- 
torical facts, for facts which he supposed to be predicted in 
the Old Testament? To take one example which has been 
urged: Justin has quoted from the Old Testament, in pre- 
cisely the same form as John (differing from the established 
text of the Septuagint), the words, ‘‘ They shall look on me 
whom they pierced”: * but instead of referring to the inci- 
dent which led John to quote it, —the thrusting of a spear 
into our Saviour’s side by a Roman soldier,—he seems to 
apply it to the crucifixion generally. How could he do this, 
if he accepted the Gospel of John ? + 

This “case presents) little difficulty. The verbs ing@tie 
quotation, it will be observed, are in the plural. If Justin 
regarded the prophecy as including the act of the Roman 
soldier, he could not have restricted it to that: he must 
have regarded the language of the Old Testament as refer- 
ring also to the piercing of the hands and the feet of Jesus 
on the part of the soldiers who nailed him to the cross. It 
is not strange, therefore, that he should quote the passage 
without referring to the particular act mentioned by John. 
He applies the prophecy, moreover, to the Jews, who caused 
the death of Jesus, and not to the Roman soldiers, who were 
the immediate agents in the crucifixion. 

But there is a stronger case than this. Justin, who speaks 
of Christ as “the passover” or paschal lamb, symbolizing 
the deliverance of Christian believers from death, “‘as the 
blood of the passover saved those who were in Egypt” (Dead. 
c. 111, comp. 40), has not noticed the fact recorded by John 
alone, that the legs of Christ were not broken by the Roman 
soldiers at the crucifixion. This the Evangelist regards as 
a fulfilment of the scripture, ‘‘A bone of him shall not be 


* Zech. xii. 10; John xix. 37; Justin, Afo/. i. 52. See above, p. 48. 

+ Thoma, pp. 542 f., 556; comp. Engelhardt, Das Christenthum Fustins des Martyrers 
(1878), p. 350. 

t Afol.i. 52; Dial. ce. 14, 32, 64, 118; comp. Dial. cc. 85, 93, etc.; Acts 11. 23; x. 39. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 69 


broken’”’; and this quotation is commonly referred to the 
direction respecting the paschal lamb (Ex. xii. 46; Num. 
ix. 12). How, it may be asked, could Justin, with his fond- 
ness for types, have neglected such a fulfilment as this, when 
the Evangelist had already pointed it out? This argument 
is plausible, and has some weight. Let us consider it. 

In the first place, I must venture to doubt whether there 
is any reference to the paschal lamb in John xix. 36. ° The 
_Evangelist says nothing whatever to indicate such a refer- 
ence, though some explanation would seem to be needed of 
the transformation of a precept into a prediction. The lan- 
guage of Ps. xxxiv. 20 (Sept. xxxiii. 21) corresponds more 
closely with the citation; and, considering the free way in 
which passages of the Old Testament are applied in the 
New, the fact that in the connection in which the words 
stand in the Psalm protection of life is referred to does not 
seem a very serious objection to the supposition that the 
Evangelist had this passage in mind. He may well have 
regarded the part of the Psalm which he quotes as fulfilled 
in the case of “ Jesus Christ the righteous” in the incident 
which he records, and the preceding verse as fulfilled in the 
resurrection. And some eminent scholars take this view 
of his meaning; so, ¢.g., Grotius, Wetstein, Bishop Kidder, 
Hammond, Whitby, Briickner, Biumlein, Weiss ;* others, as 
Lenfant and Le Clerc, leave the matter doubtful; and some, 
as Vitringa and Bengel, suppose the Evangelist to have had 
both passages in mind. But, waiving this question, I would 
say, once for all, that very little importance is to be attached 
to this sort of a priovz reasoning. We may be surprised that 
Justin should not have been led by the Fourth Gospel to 
find here a fulfilment of prophecy of some sort, and to use 
itin his argument; but a hundred cases equally surprising 
might be cited of the neglect of a writer to use an argument 
or to recognize a fact which we should have confidently ex- 
pected that he would use or recognize. To take the first 
that lies at hand. I have before me the work of Dr. Sanday, 


* Bibl. Theol. des N.T., 3& Aufl. (1880), p. 638; comp. his Der Fohanneische Lehrbegriff 
(1862), p. 114, note. SoR. H. Hutton, Essays, Theol. and Literary, 2d ed. (1880), i. 195. 


7° CRITICAL ESSAYS 


The Gospels in the Second Century, a learned, elaborate, and 
valuable treatise in reply to Supernatural Religion. Ue ad- 
duces from all sources the evidence of the use of the Gospels. 
by writers who flourished in the period from Clement of 
Rome to Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, including 
those whose references to the Gospel are very slight and 
doubtful, or of whom mere fragments remain. Appended 
to the work is a chronological and analytical table of these 
authors. But, on looking it over, we find no mention of 
Theophilus, bishop of Antioch a.p. 169-181; and Dr. Sanday 
has nowhere presented the testimony of this writer, though 
we have from him an elaborate “Apology” or defence of 
Christianity in three books, in which he quotes several pas- 
sages from the Gospel of Matthew with the introduction, 
“The evangelic voice teaches” so and so, or “the Gospel 
says,’ * and though, as we have seen, he quotes the Gospel 
of John (ch. i. 1, 3), naming the Evangelist, and describing 
him as one moved by the Spirit of God (see above, p. 58). 
He is in fact the earliest writer who does thus expressly 
quote the Fourth Gospel as the work of John. Now sup- 
pose Dr. Sanday was a Father of the third or fourth century 
who had composed a treatise with the purpose of collecting 
the evidences of the use of the Gospels by early Christian 
writers. What would the author of Supernatural Religion 
say to the facts in this case? Would he not argue that 
Sandzeus could not possibly have been acquainted with this 
work of Theophilus, and that the pretended “ Apology” was 
probably spurious? And, if he found in Sandzeus (p. 303) 
a single apparent allusion to that writer, would he not main- 
tain that this must be an interpolation ?— Or to take another 
example. Sandzus is examining the question about Justin 
Martyr’s use of the Gospels, and observes that “he says 
emphatically that all the children (πάντας ἁπλῶς τοὺς raidac) 
in Bethlehem were slain, without mentioning the limitation 
of age given in St. Matthew” (p. 106; comp. Justin, Dza/. 
c. 78). Now in our present texts of Justin there is another 


* Ad Autol. lib. iii. cc. 13, 14, ed. Otto; comp. Matt. v. 28, 44, 46; vi. 3. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 71 


reference to the slaughter of the innocents, in which Herod 
is represented as “destroying all the children born in Beth- 
-lehem az that time.” * But here Supernatural Religion might 
argue, It is certain that this qualifying phrase could not have 
been in the copy used by Sandzeus, who takes no notice of 
the passage, though his aim is to meet the objections to the 
genuineness of our Gospels. Is it not clear that the words 
were interpolated by some one who wished to bring Justin 
into harmony with Matthew? Would Justin be so incon- 
sistent with himself as that addition would make him? 

A multitude of questions may be asked, to which no par- 
ticular answer can be given, in reference to the use which 
Justin and writers in all ages have made of our Gospels. 
We cannot say why he has quoted this saying of Jesus and 
not that, or referred to this incident in the history and not 
that ; why, for example, in his account of Christ’s teaching 
in his First Apology, he makes no allusion to any of the 
parables which form so remarkable a feature of it, and quotes 
from them in but one place in his Dialogue with Trypho 
(Dial. c. 125). We can only say that he had to stop some- 
where; that he has used the Gospels much more freely 
than any other of the many Christian Apologists whose 
writings have come down to us from his day to that of 
Lactantius and Eusebius; that his selection of the sayings 
of Christ seems on the whole judicious and natural, though 
many pearls of great price are missing; that the historical 
incidents by which he supports his special argument from 
the fulfilment of prophecy are for the most part what might 
be. expected; and that it was natural that in general he 
should follow the Synoptic Gospels rather than that of 
John.t But one needs only to try experiments on partic- 
ular works by almost any writer to find that great caution 
is required in drawing inferences from what he has zo¢ done. 


* Dial. c. 103: ἀνελόντος πάντας τοὺς ἐν Βηθλεὲμ ἐκείνου τοῦ καιροῦ 
γεννηθέντας παῖδας. 

+Comp. Afol. i. 53: ‘Here we conclude, though we have many other prophecies to 
produce.’’ 

tSee on this point Meyer, Kom. tier d. Ev. Foh., 5¢ Aufl. (1869), p. 8 f., note (Eng. 
trans., p. 8 f., note 3); comp. Weizsiicker, Untersuchungen tiber d. evang. Geschichte, p. 229. 


72 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


As to the case before us, Justin may not have thought of 
the incident peculiar to the Fourth Gospel, or he may have 
considered, and very reasonably too, that an argument for 
the typical character of the paschal lamb founded on the 
direction given in the Pentateuch about the bones, or an 
argument assuming the Messianic reference of the passage 
in the Psalms, was not well adapted to convince unbelievers. 
Perhaps he had urged this argument in the actual dialogue 
with Trypho, and had encountered objections to its validity 
which he did not find it easy to answer. This may seem 
more probable than the supposition of forgetfulness. But 
will you say that such a failure of memory as has been sug- 
gested is incredible? Let us compare acase. One of the 
most distinguished scholars of this country, in an article 
published in the American Biblical Repository, remarks, in 
the course of an elaborate argument : — 

The particulars inserted or omitted by different Evangelists vary ex- 
ceedingly from each other, some inserting what others omit, and some 
narrating at length what others briefly touch. £. g., compare the history 


of the temptation by Mark, and even by Matthew and Luke; and where 
is the history of the sransfiguration to be found, except in Matthew ?* 


Could anything be @ priori more incredible than that an 
eminent Biblical scholar, who when this was written had held 
the office or Professor of Sacred Literature in the Andover 
Theological Seminary for nearly thirty years, should have 
forgotten that both Mark and Luke have given full accounts 
of the transfiguration, the latter especially mentioning a num- 
ber of important particulars not found in Matthew?7 If 
Professor Stuart was occasionally guilty of oversights, —as 
who is not ?—he certainly had a clearer head and a better 
memory than Justin Martyr, who in quoting and referring to 
the Old Testament makes not a few extraordinary mistakes.t 

I admit that some weight should be allowed to the argu- 


* American Biblical Repository, October, 1838, xii. 341. 
+ Compare Mark ix. 2-8 and Luke ix. 28-36 with Matt. xvii. 1-8. 


=See the references already given, p. 49, note*; also Some Account of the Writings 
and Opinions of Fustin Martyr, by John [Kaye], Bishop of Lincoln, 3d ed. (1853), pp. 139 £ 
148; comp. p. 129 f. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 73 


ment we have been examining, so far as reference to the 
history in the Gospel of John is concerned ; but it does not 
seem to me that much importance should be attached to it. 
The tradition in the Synoptic Gospels represents without 
doubt the substance of the apostolic preaching; it was 
earlier committed to writing than that contained in the 
Fourth Gospel; the incidents of the threefold narrative were 
more familiar; and the discourses, especially, as has already 
been remarked, were far better fitted for illustrating the 
general character of Christ’s teaching than those of the 
Fourth Gospel. It would have been very strange, there- 
fore, if in such works as those of Justin the Synoptic Gos- 
pels had not been mainly used. 

Engelhardt, the most recent writer on Justin, is impressed 
by the facts which Thoma presents respecting Justin’s rela- 
tion to John, but comes to a different conclusion. He thinks 
Justin could never have made the use of John’s Gospel which 
he has done, if he had not regarded it as genuine. It pur- 
ports to be a work of the beloved disciple. The conjecture 
that by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” Andrew was in- 
tended (Litzelberger), or Nathanael (Spaeth), or a person- 
ified ideal conception (Scholten), was reserved for the 
sagacity of critics of the nineteenth century: there is no 
trace that in Christian antiquity this title ever suggested 
any one but John. The Gospel must have been received as 
his work, or rejected as fictitious. Engelhardt believes that 
Justin received it, and included it in his ‘‘ Memoirs”; but he 
conjectures that with it there was commonly réad in the 
churches and used by Justin a Harmony of the first three 
Gospels, or at least of Matthew and Luke, while the Fourth 
Gospel, not yet incorporated into the Harmony, stood in the 
background.* I do not feel the need of this hypothesis ; 
but it may deserve consideration. 

It is objected further that Justin’s statements repeatedly 
contradict the Fourth Gospel, and that he cannot therefore 
have regarded it as apostolic or authentic. For example, 
he follows the Synoptic Gospels, so Hilgenfeld and David- 


* See Engelhardt, Das Christenthum Fustins des Miirtyrers, pp. 345-352- 


74 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


son and Supernatural Religion affirm, in placing, in opposi- 
tion to John, the death of Christ on the 15th of Nisan, the 
day after the paschal lamb was killed. 

The argument that Justin cannot have accepted the Gospel 
of John because he has followed the Synoptists in respect to 
the day of Christ’s death hardly needs an answer. If the 
discrepancy referred to, whether real or not, did not prevent 
the whole Christian world from accepting John and the 
Synoptic Gospels alike in the last quarter of the second 
century, it need not have hindered Justin from doing so at 
an earlier date. But it is far from certain that Hilgenfeld 
and Davidson have correctly interpreted the language of 
Justin: ‘It is written that you seized him on the day of the 
passover, and in like manner crucified him at [or during] 
the passover (ἐν τᾷ xdcya).” * Meyer understands this as plac- 
ing the death of Jesus on the day of the passover;f Otto 
in an elaborate note on the passage in his ¢hzrd edition of 
Justin’s Works maintains the same view; Thoma regards 
the language as ambiguous.|| I will not undertake to pro- 
nounce an opinion upon so difficult a question, as the objec- 
tion is futile on any supposition. 

Again, Supernatural Religion asserts that “ Justin contra- 
dicts the Fourth Gospel, in limiting the work of Jesus to one 
year.” (S. R. ii. 313.) Dr. Davidson makes the same state- 
ment ;** but neither henor S. XR. adduces any proof of it. 
I know of no passage in Justin which affirms or implies this 
limitation. But, if such a passage should be found, the argu- 
ment against Justin’s reception of the Fourth Gospel would 


*Dial. c. 111. See Hilgenfeld, Dex Paschastreit der alten Kirche (1860), pp. 205-209} 
Davidson, Jztrod. to the Study of the N.T. (1868), ii. 384; Sup. Rel., li. 313; comp. Wieseler, 
Beitrtige (1869), p. 240.— Note here the use of γέγραπται. 

+ Komment. tib. d. Ev. des Foh., 5° Aufl. p. 24 f. (Eng. trans. i. 24 f.) Steitz, who formerly 
agreed with Hilgenfeld, afterwards adopted the view of Meyer; see the art. Pascha in Herzog’s 
Real-Encyk. f. Prot. u. Kirche, xi. 151, note *. 

tJustini... Martyris Opera, tom. i. pars ii., ed. tert. (1877), p. 395 f. Otto cites Dia. 
c. 99, where the agony in Gethsemane is referred to as taking place “‘on the day on which Jesus 
was to be crucified,’’ as showing that Justin followed the Jewish reckoning of the day from 
sunset to sunset. Davidson takes no notice of this. If Meyer and Otto are right, we have here 
a strong argument for Justin’s use of the Fourth Gospel. 


|| Ubi supra, Ὁ. 535 Ff. 
** Introd. to the Study of the N.T., ii. 387. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 75 


be worthless. The opinion that Christ’s ministry lasted but 
one year, or little more, was held by many in the early Church 
who received the Gospel of John without question. It was 
maintained by the Basilidians, the Valentinians, and the 
author of the Clementine Homilies, by Clement of Alexan- 
dria, Tertullian, Origen, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Cyprian, 
Archelaus, Lactantius, Ephraem Syrus apparently, Philas- 
trius, Gaudentius, Q. Julius Hilarianus, Augustine apparently, 
Evagrius the presbyter, and others among the Fathers, and 
has been held by modern scholars, as Bentley, Mann, Priestley 
(Harmony), Lant Carpenter ({farmony), and Henry Browne 
(Ordo Seclorum).* The Fathers were much influenced by 
their interpretation of Isa. 1xi. 2, — “to preach the acceptable 
year of the Lord,’ — quoted in Luke iv. 19. It is true that 
John vi. 4 is against this view ; but its defenders find means, 
satisfactory to themselves, of getting over the difficulty. 
Other objections urged by Dr. Davidson and Supernatural 
Religion seem to me too weak to need an answer. I will, 
however, notice one which is brought forward with great 
confidence by Thoma, who says “ Justin directly contradicts 
the Fourth Gospel” (p. 556), and after him by F. C. J. van 
Goens, who introduces it with the words enfin et surtout.t 


*The Basilidians, see Clem. Alex. S¢vom. i. 21, p. 408.— Valentinians, see Iren. Her. i. 3. 
(al. 5), ὃ 3 ii. 20. (al. 36), ὃ τ; 22. (al. 38-40), δὲ 1-6.—Clem. Hom. xvii. 19.— Clem. Alex. Strom. 
1, 21, p. 407; vi. 11, p. 783, 1. 40; comp. v. 6, p. 668; vii. 17, p. 898.—Tertull. Adv. Fud. c. 8; 
Marc. i. 15 (but here are different readings).— Origen, De Princzp. iv. 5, Opp. i. 160; J Levit. 
Hom. ix. c. 5, Opp. ii. 239; Jz Luc. Hom. xxxii., Opp. iil. 970; contra, 7γ Matt. Comm. Ser., 
c. 40, Opp. iii. 859, ‘‘fere tres annos’’?; comp. Ce/s. ii. 12, Opp. i. 397, οὐδὲ τρία ἔτη.--- Jul. 
Africani Chron. frag. 1. ap. Routh, κ᾽ οἰ. Sacre, ii. 301 f., ed. alt.— Pseudo-Cyprian, De Pasche 
Comp. (A.D. 243), Cc. 22.—Archelai et Manetis Disp.,c. 34.—Lactant. 7,52. iv. το, (De Morte 
Persec. c. 2.)— Ephraem, Seri. xiii. 22 Mat. Dom., Opp. Syr. ii. 432.— Philastr. Her. 106.— 
Gaudent. Serm. 111., Migne, Patrol. Lat. xx. 865.— Hilarianus, De Mundi Dur. (A.D. 397) 
c. 16; De Die Pasche,c. 15; Migne, xiii. 1104, 1114, or Gallandi, 5121. Patr. viil. 238, 748.— 
Augustine, De Civ. Dez, xviii. 54, Opp. vii. 866; Ad Hesych. Epist. 199 (al. 80), ὃ 20, Opp. 
li. 1122; contra, De Doct. Christ. ii. 42 (al. 28), Opp. iii. 66.— Evagrius presbyter (cz. A.D. 423), 
Alterc. inter Theoph. Christ. et Sin. Fud., Migne xx. 1176, or Gallandi, ix. 254.—So also the 
author of the treatise De Promissis et Predictionibus Dei (published with the works of Prosper 
Aquitanus), pars i. c. 7; pars v. c.2; Migne, li. 739 c, 855 b.— Browne, Ordo Seclorum (Cor- 
rections and Additions), also cites Cyril of Alexandria, Zz Jsa. xxxii. 10, Opp. ii. 446 de, but 
this rests on a false inference; see, contra, Cyril, Zz Isa. xxix. 1, Opp. ii. 408b. Besides the 
works of Nichdlas Mann, De veris Annis Fesu Christi natali et emortuali, Lond. 1752, p. 158 
ff., Greswell, Dissertations, etc., i. 438 ff., 2d ed. (1837), and Henry Browne, Ordo Seclorum, 
Lond. 1844, p. 80 ff., one may consult especially F. X. Patritius (¢.e. Patrizi), De Evangeliis 
(Friburg. Brisgov. 1853), lib. iii., diss. xix., p. 17x ff. 


+ Revue de théologie et de philosophie, Lausanne, 1878, xi. 92 f. 


76 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Justin speaks of Christ as ‘keeping silence .and refusing 
any longer to make any answer to any one before Pilate, as 
has been declared in the Memoirs by the Apostles’ (Dzad. 
c. 102). M. van Goens remarks, “No one who had ever 
read the Fourth Gospel could speak in this way.” What 
does M. van Goens think of Tertullian, who says,* “Velut 
agnus coram tondente se sine vece, sic non aperuit os suum. 
Hic enim Pilato interrogante nihil locutus est’? Τί Justin 
had even said that Christ made no answer when Pilate ques- 
tioned him, this would be sufficiently explained by John 
xix, 9, to which Tertullian perhaps refers. But the expres- 
sions “no longer” and “before Pilate” lead rather to the 
supposition that Justin refers to Matt. xxvii. 11-14 and 
Mark xv. 2-5 (οὐκέτι οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίθη, “he no longer made any 
answer’’), which certainly there is nothing in John to con- 
tradict. 

Finally, the author of Supernatural Religion urges, gener- 
ally, that in citing the Old Testament Justin, according to 
Semisch’s count, refers to the author by name or by book 
one hundred and ninety-seven times, and omits to do this 
only one hundred and seventeen times. On the other hand, 
in referring to the words of Christ or the facts of Christian 
history for which he relied on the “ Memoirs,” he never cites 
the book (5. A. regards the “ Memoirs”’ as one book) by the 
name of the author, except in a single instance, where he 
refers to “Peter's Memoirs” (Jizad. c. 106). ‘The infer- 
ence,” he says, “must not only be that he attached small 
importance to the Memoirs, but was actually ignorant of the 
author’s name” (S. R. i. 297). That Justin attached small 
importance to the “ Memoirs by the Apostles” on which he 
professedly relied for the teaching and life of Christ, and 
this, as S. &. contends, to the exclusion of oral tradition 
(S. R. i. 298), is an “inference” and a proposition which 
would surprise us in almost any other writer. The infer- 
ence, moreover, that Justin “was actually ignorant of the 
author’s name,” when in one instance, according to S. R., 


* Adu. Fud. c. 13, Opp. ii. 737, ed. Oehler. 
+See above, p. 22£ 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL AT 


“he indicates Peter” as the author (S. &. i. 285), and when, 
as S. R. maintains, “the Gospel according to Peter,” or “the 
Gospel according to the Hebrews” (which he represents as 
substantially the same work), was in all probability the source 
from which the numerous quotations in his works differing 
from our Gospels are taken,* is another specimen of singular 
logic. So much for generalities. But a particular objection 
to the conclusion that the Gospel of John was one of Justin’s 
“Memoirs” is founded on the fact that he has never quoted 
or referred to it under the name of the author, though he has 
named the Apostle John as the author of the Apocalypse. 
(5. Δ΄. 1. 298.) Great stress is laid on this contrast by many 
writers. 

Let us see to what these objections amount. In the first 
place, the way in which Justin has mentioned John as the 
author of the Apocalypse is in itself enough to explain why 
he should not have named him.in citing the “Memoirs,” 
In his Dialogue with Trypho, after having quoted prophecies 
of the Old Testament in proof of his doctrine of the Millen- 
nium, —a doctrine in which he confesses some Christians 
did not agree with him, —he wishes to state that his belief 
is supported by a Christian writing which he regards as in- 
spired and prophetic. He accordingly refers to the work 
as follows: “And afterwards also a certain man among us,’ 
whose name was John, one of the Apostles of Christ, in a 
revelation made by him prophesied that the believers in our 
Christ should spend a thousand years in Jerusalem,” etc. 
(Dial. c. 81.) The Apostle John was certainly as well known 
outside of the Christian body as any other of the Evangelists ; 
but we see that he is here introduced to Trypho as a stranger. 
Still more would he and the other Evangelists be strangers 
to the Roman Emperor and Senate, to whom the Apologies 
were addressed. That Justin ‘under such circumstances 
should quote the Evangelists by name, assigning this saying 
or incident to “the Gospel according to Matthew,” that to 
“Tuke,”’ and the other to “the Gospel according to John,” 


* Supernatural Religion, i. 321; comp. PP. 312, 323, 332, 398, 416, 418-427; 11. 311, 7th ed. 


78 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


as if he were addressing a Christian community familiar with 
the books, would have been preposterous. Justin has de- 
scribed the books in his First Apology as Memoirs of Christ, 
resting on the authority of the Apostles, and received by 
the Christians of his time as authentic records. That was 
all that his purpose required: the names of four unknown 
persons would have added no weight to his citations. In 
the Dialogue, he is even more specific in his description of 
the “Memoirs” than in the Apology. But to suppose that 
he would quote them as he quotes the books of the Old Tes- 
tament with which Trypho was familiar is to ignore all the 
proprieties and congruities of the case. 

This view is confirmed and the whole argument of Swfer- 
natural Religion is nullified by the fact that the general 
practice of Christian Apologists down to the time of Euse- 
bius corresponds with that of Justin, as we have before had 
occasion to remark. (See above, p. 67.) It may be added 
that, while in writings addressed to Christian readers by the 
earlier Fathers the Old Testament is often, or usually, cited 
with reference to the author or book, the cases are com- 
paratively very rare in which the Evangelists are named. 
For example, Clement of Alexandria, according to Semisch, 
quotes the Old Testament writers or books far oftener than 
otherwise by name, while in his very numerous citations 
from the Gospels he names John but three times, Matthew 
twice, Luke twice, and Mark once; in the countless cita- 
tions of the Gospels in the Apostolical Constitutions, the 
Evangelists are never named; and so in the numerous 
quotations of the Gospels in Cyprian’s writings, with the 
exception of a single treatise (the Zestimonia or Ad Quiri- 
num), the names of the Evangelists are never mentioned. 
But it cannot be necessary to expose further the utter futil- 
ity of this objection, which has so orten been inconsiderately 
urged.* 

In this view of the objections to the supposition that 
Justin used the Gospel of John and included it in his 


*See Semisch, Die afostol. Denkwiirdigkeiten, u.s.w., p. 84 ff.; and compare Norton, 
Genuineness, etc., i. 205 ff., 2d ed. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 79 


“Memoirs,” I have either cited them in the precise lan- 
guage of their authors, or have endeavored to state them 
in their most plausible form. When fairly examined, only 
one of them appears to have weight, and that not much. 1 
refer to the objection that, if Justin used the Fourth Gospel 
at all, we should expect him to have used it more. It seems 
to me, therefore, that there is nothing of importance to 
countervail the very strong presumption from different lines 
of evidence that the “Memoirs” of Justin Martyr, ‘“com- 
posed by Apostles and their companions,’ were our four 
Gospels. 

A word should perhaps be added in reference to the view 
of Dr. E. A. Abbott, in the valuable article Gospels con- 
tributed to the new edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. 
He holds that Justin’s “Memoirs” included the first three 
Gospels, and these only. These alone were received by the 
Christian community of his time as the authentic records of 
the life and teaching of Christ. If so, how can we explain 
the fact that a pretended Gospel so different in character 
from these, and so inconsistent with them as it is supposed 
to be, should have found universal acceptance in the next 
generation on the part of Christians of the most opposite 
opinions, without trace of controversy, with the slight excep- 
tion of the Alogi previously mentioned ? ἢ 

I have not attempted in the present paper a thorough dis- 
cussion of Justin Martyr’s quotations, but only to illustrate 
by some decisive examples the false assumptions on which 
the reasoning of Supernatural Religion is founded. In a full 
treatment of the subject, it would be necessary to consider 
the question of Justin’s use of apocryphal Gospels, and in 
particular the “Gospel according to the Hebrews” and the 
“Gospel according to Peter,’ which figure so prominently in 
what calls itself “criticism” (de Kritik) as the pretended 
source of Justin’s quotations. This subject has already been 


*See above, p. 20. The work of Hippolytus, of which we know only the title found on 
the cathedra of his statue at Rome, “On [ov ‘In defence of” (ὑπὲρ) | the Gospel according 
to John and the Apocalypse,”” may have been written in answer to their objections. See 
Bunsen’s Hipfolytus, 2d ed. (1854), i. 460. On the Alogi see also Weizsacker, Untersuchungen 
liber d. evang. Geschichte, p. 226 f., note. 


80 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


referred to;* but it is impossible to treat it here in detail. 
In respect to “the Gospel according to the Hebrews” I will 
give in a Note some quotations from the article Gospels, 
Apocryphal, by Professor R. A. Lipsius, of Jena, in the 
second volume of Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian 
Biography, published in the present year, with extracts from 
other recent writers, which will sufficiently show how ground- 
less is the supposition that Justin’s quotations were mainly 
derived from this Gospel. Lipsius certainly will not be 
suspected of any “apologetic” tendency. Credner’s hypoth- 
esis that the “Gospel according to Peter,” which he regards 
as the Gospel used by the Jewish Christians generally, and 
strangely identifies with the Dzatessaron of Tatian, was the 
chief source of Justin’s quotations, was thoroughly refuted 
by Mr. Norton as long ago as the year 1834 in the Select 
Fournal of Foreign Periodical Literature, and afterwards in 
a Note to the first edition of his work on the Genuineness of 
the Gospels. It is exposed on every side to overwhelming 
objections, and has hardly a shadow of evidence to support 
it. Almost our whole knowledge of this Gospel is derived 
from the account of it by Serapion, bishop of Antioch near 
the end of the second century (A.D. 191-213), who is the first 
writer by whom it is mentioned:-|| He “found it for the 
most part in accordance with the right doctrine of the 
Saviour,” but containing passages favoring the opinions of 
the Docetez, by whom it was used. According to Origen, it 
represented the “brethren” of Jesus as sons of Joseph by a 
former wife.** It was evidently a book of very little note. 
Though it plays a conspicuous part in the speculations of 
modern German scholars and of Supernatural Religion about 


*See above, p. 17 f. 

+See Note Ὁ, at the end of this essay. 

+ Select Fournal, etc. (Boston), April, 1834, vol. iii., part il., pp. 234-242; Auzdences of the 
Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. (1837), Addit. Notes, pp. ccxxxii—cclv. See also Bindemann, 
who discusses ably the whole question about Justin Martyr’s Gospels, in the Theol. Studien τέ. 
Kritiken, 1842, pp- 355-4823 Semisch, Die afostol. Denkwiirdigkeiten αι. 5. W., pp. 43-59; on the 
other side, Credner, Beitrdige u. s. w., vol. i. (1832); Mayerhoff, Wist.-crit. Einleitung in die 
petrinischen Schriften (1835), p. 234 ff.; Hilgenfeld, Avzt. Untersuchungen u. 5. W., Pp. 259 ff, 

|| Serapion’s account of it is preserved by Eusebius, 7st. Zccé. vi. 12. 


** Origen, Comm. in Matt. τ. x. §17, Opp. ili. 462 f. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 81 


the origin of the Gospels and the quotations of Justin 
Martyr, zot a single fragment of it has come down to us. 
This zominis umbra has therefore proved wonderfully con- 
venient for those who have had occasion, in support of their 
hypotheses, ‘‘to draw unlimited cheques,” as Lightfoot 
somewhere expresses it, “on the bank of the unknown.” 
Mr. Norton has shown, by an acute analysis of Serapion’s 
account of it, that in all probability it was not an historical, 
but a doctrinal work.* Lipsius remarks: “The statement 
of Theodoret (Her. Fad. ii. 2) that the Nazarenes had made 
use of this Gospel rested probably on a misunderstanding. 
The passage moreover in Justin Martyr (Dial. c. Tryph. 106) 
in which some have thought to find mention of the Memorials 
of Peter is very doubtful. ... Herewith fall to the ground 
all those hypotheses which make the Gospel of Peter into an 
original work made use of by Justin Martyr, nigh related to 
the Gospel of the Hebrews, and either the Jewish Christian 
basis of our canonical St. Mark [so Hilgenfeld], or, at any 
rate, the Gospel of the Gnosticizing Ebionites” [Volkmar]. + 
To this I would only add that almost the only fact of which 
we are directly informed respecting the contents of the 
so-called “Gospel of Peter” is that it favored the opinions 
of the Docetz, to which Justin Martyr, who wrote a book 
against the Marcionites (Euseb. Ast. Eccl. iv. 11. § 8), was 
diametrically opposed. 

Glancing back now over the ground we have traversed, 
we find (1) that the general reception of our four Gospels as 
sacred books throughout the Christian world in the time of 
Irenzeus makes it almost certain that the “ Memoirs called 
Gospels,” “composed by Apostles and their companions,” 
which were used by his early contemporary Justin Martyr, 
and were read in the Christian churches of his day as the 
authoritative records of Christ’s life and teaching, were the 
same books; (2) that this presumption is confirmed by the 
actual use which Justin has made of all our Gospels, though 


* Genuineness of the Gospels, χὰ ed., vol. iii. (1848), pp. 255-260; abridged edition (1867), 
pp. 362-366. 
1 Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christian Biog., ii. 712. 


82 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


he has mainly followed, as was natural, the Gospel of 
Matthew, and his a@ivect citations from the Gospel of John, 
and references to it, are few; (3) that it is still further 
strengthened, in respect to the Gospel of John, by the 
evidences of its use between the time of Justin and that of 
Irenzeus, both by the Catholic Christians and the Gnostics, 
and especially by its inclusion in Tatian’s Diatessaron; (4) 
that, of the two principal assumptions on which the counter- 
argument is founded, one is demonstrably false and the 
other baseless ; and (5) that the particular objections to the 
view that Justin included the Gospel of John in his “ Me- 
moirs”’ are of very little weight. We are authorized then, I 
believe, to regard it as in the highest degree probable, if not 
morally certain, that in the time of Justin Martyr the Fourth 
Gospel was generally received as the work of the Apostle 
John. 


III. WE pass now to our third point, the use of the Fourth 
Gospel by the various Gnostic sects. The length to which 
the preceding discussion has extended makes it necessary to 
treat this part of the subject in a very summary manner. 

The Gnostic sects with which we are concerned became 
conspicuous in the second quarter of the second century, 
under the reigns of Hadrian (A.D. 117-138) and Antoninus 
Pius (A.D. 138-161). The most prominent among them 
were those founded by Marcion, Valentinus, and Basilides. 
To these may be added the Ophites or Naassenes. 

Marcion has already been referred to.* He prepared a 
Gospel for his followers by striking from the Gospel of Luke 
what was inconsistent with his system, and treated in a sim- 
ilar manner ten of the Epistles of Paul. He rejected the 
other Gospels, not on the ground that they were spurious, 
but because he believed their authors were under the influ- 
ence of Jewish prejudices.t In proof of this, he appealed 
to the passage in the Epistle to the Galatians on which Baur 


* See above, p. 21. 


+ See Irenzus, Her. iii. 12. § 12. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 83 


and his school lay so much stress. “Marcion,” says Ter- 
tullian, “having got the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, 
who reproves even the Apostles themselves for not walking 
straight, according to the truth of the Gospel, . . . endeavors 
to destroy the reputation of those Gospels which are truly 
such, and are published under the name of Apostles, or also 
of apostolic men, in order that he may give to his own the 
credit which he takes away from them.” * In another place, 
Tertullian says, addressing Marcion: “If you had not re- 
jected some and corrupted others of the Scriptures which 
contradict your opinion, the Gospel of John would have con- 
futed you.” + Again: “Of those historians whom we pos- 
sess, it appears that Marcion selected Luke for his mutila- 
tions.” { The fact that Marcion placed his rejection of the 
Gospels on this ground, that the Apostles were but imper- 
fectly enlightened, shows that he could not question their 
apostolic authorship.|| His reference to the Epistle to the 
Galatians indicates also that the ‘“pillar-apostles”’ (Gal. 1]. 
9), Peter and John, were particularly in his mind. Peter, it 
will be remembered, was regarded as having sanctioned the 
Gospel of Mark. (See above, p. 23.) 

It has been asserted by many modern critics, as Hilgen- 
feld, Volkmar, Scholten, Davidson, and others, that, if Mar- 
cion had been acquainted with the Gospel of John, he would 
have chosen that, rather than Luke, for expurgation, on 
account of its marked anti-Judaic character. But a careful 
comparison of John’s Gospel with Marcion’s doctrines will 
show that it contradicts them in so many places and so 


* Adu. Marc. iv. 3. Comp. Prescr. cc. 22-24. See also Norton, Genuineness of the 
Gosfels, 2d ed., iii. 206 ff., 303 ff.; or abridged edition, pp. 332 ff., 392 ff. 


| De Carne Christi, c. 3. 


$Adv. Marc. iv. 2. ‘‘Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem cederet.”? On account of the 
use of widetury here, Dr. Davidson, following some German critics, says, ‘‘ Even in speaking 
about Marcion’s treatment of Luke, Tertullian puts it forth as a conjecture.” (Jxtrod. to the 
Study of the N. T., 11. 305.) A conjecture, when Tertullian has devoted a whole book to the 
refutation of Marcion from those passages of Luke which he retained! The context and all 
the facts of the case show that no doubt can possibly have been intended; and Tertullian often 
uses viderz, not in the sense of ‘*to seem,’’ but of “ to be seen,’’ ‘*to be apparent.’? See Aol. 
c. 19; De Orat. Ὁ. 21; Adv. Prax. cc. 26, 29; Adv. Jud. Ὁ, 5, from Isa. i. 12; and De Prescr. 
¢. 38, which has likewise been misinterpreted. 

|| Apelles, the disciple of Marcion, appears to have used the Fourth Gospel as an authority 
for facts; see Hippol. Ref Her. vii. 38, p. 260, 1. 20; comp. John xx. 25,27. Hippolytus say : 
τῶν δὲ εὐαγγελίων ἢ τοῦ ἀποστόλου τὰ ἀρέσκοντα αὐτῷ αἱρεῖται. Comp. Origen, 2. 
ad charos suos in Rufinus, Liber de adulteratione librorum Origenis, appended to Origen, 
Opp. iv. <24, ed Delarue. 


84 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


absolutely that it would have been utterly unsuitable for his 
purpose. * 

The theosophic or speculative Gnostics, as the Ophites, 
Valentinians, and Basilidians, found more in John which, by 
ingenious interpretation, they could use in support of their 
systems.} 

It is moreover to be observed, in regard to the Marcionites, 
as Mr. Norton remarks, “that their having recourse to the 
mutilation of Luke’s Gospel shows that no other history of 
Christ’s ministry existed more favorable to their doctrines ; 
that, in the first half of the second century, when Marcion 
lived, there was no Gnostic Gospel in being to which he 
could appeal.” ¢ 

We come now to Valentinus. It has already appeared that 
the later Valentinians, represented by Ptolemy, Heracleon, 
and the Excerpta Theodoti, received the Gospel of John 
without question. || The presumption is therefore obviously 
very strong that it was so received by the founder of the 
sect. ** That this was so is the representation of Tertullian. 
He contrasts the course pursued by Marcion and Valentinus. 
‘One man,” he says, “perverts the Scriptures with his 
hand, another by his exposition of their meaning. For, 
if it appears that Valentinus uses the entire document,— 
st Valentinus integro instrumento uti videtur,—he has yet 
done violence to the truth more artfully than Marcion.” 
For Marcion, he goes on to say, openly used the knife, 
not the pen; Valentinus has spared the Scriptures, but 
explains them away, or thrusts false meanings into them.ff 


*See on this point Bleek, Zw. ix α΄. N. T., 3d ed. (1875), p. 158, ff., with Mangold’s note, 
who remarks that ‘‘it was simply impossible for Marcion to choose the fourth Gospel’? for this pur- 
pose; also Weizsicker, Untersuchungen tiber α΄. evang. Geschichte (1864), p. 230, ff. ; Luthardt, 
Die johan. Urspriung des vierten Ev. (1874), p. 92, or Eng. trans., p. 108 f.; Godet, Comm. sur 
Pévangile de St. Jean, 2d ed., tom. i. (1876), p. 270 f., or Eng. trans., i. 222 f. 

+ On the use of the N.T. by the Valentinians, see particularly G. Heinrici, Dze valentinian- 
ische Gnosis und die Heilige Schrift, Berlin, 1871. 

+ Genuineness of the Gospels, 2d ed., 111. 3043 abridged ed., p. 392 f. 

|| See above, p. 62 f. 

** On this point, see Norton, Genzineness, etc., 2d ed., iii. 321 f.; abridged ed., p. 403 f. 


+t Tertullian, Pr@scr. c. 38. On the use of the word widetur, see above, p. 83, note t. 
The context shows that no doubt is intended. If, however, the word should be taken in the sense 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 85 


The testimony of Tertullian is apparently confirmed by 
Hippolytus, who, in a professed account of the doctrines of 
Valentinus (Ref. Her. vi. 21-37, or 16-32, Eng. trans. ; 
comp. the introduction, § 3), says: “All the prophets, there- 
fore, and the Law spoke from the Demiurgus, a foolish God, 
he says, [and spoke] as fools, knowing nothing. Therefore, 
says he, the Saviour says, ‘All who have come before me 
are thieves and robbers’ (John x. 8); and the Apostle, ‘The 
mystery which was not made known to former generations’”’ 
(Eph. iii. 4, 5). Here, however, it is urged that Hippolytus, 
in his account of Valentinus, mixes up references to Valen- 
tinus and his followers in such a manner that we cannot be 
sure that, in the use of the φησί, “he says,” he is not quoting 
from some one of his school, and not the master. A full ex- 
hibition of the facts and discussion of the question cannot 
be given here. I believe there is a strong presumption that 
Hippolytus zs quoting from a work of Valentinus:* the reg- 
ular exposition of the opinions of his disciples, Secundus, 
Ptolemy, and Heracleon, does not begin till afterwards, in 
c. 38, or c. 33 of the English translation ; but it is true that, 
in the present text, φησί is used vaguely toward the end of 
c. 35, where the opinions of the Italian and Oriental schools 
are distinguished in reference to a certain point. I there- 
fore do not press this quotation as direct proof of the use of 
the Fourth Gospel by Valentinus himself. 

Next to Marcion and Valentinus, the most eminent 
among the founders of early Gnostic sects was Basilides, of 
Alexandria. He flourished about a.p. 125. In the Homi- 
lies on Luke generally ascribed to Origen, though some 
-have questioned their genuineness, we are told, in an ac- 
count of apocryphal Gospels, that “Basilides had the au- 
dacity to write a Gospel according to Basilides.” | Ambrose 
and Jerome copy this account in the prefaces to their re- 


of “seems,” the contrast must be between the ostensible use of the Scriptures by Valentinus and 
his virtual rejection of them by imposing upon them a sense contrary to their teaching. Comp. 
Irenxus, Wer. iii. 12. § 12: ‘‘scripturas quidem confitentes, interpretationes vero convertunt.” 
50 Her. i. 3. § 6; iii. 14. § 4. 

* See esp. Lightfoot, Colossians, p. 266, note 1; p. 269, note r. 

+So the Greek: Origen, //om. i. in Luc., Opp. iii 932, note; the Latin in Jerome’s transla 
tion reads, ‘‘ Ausus fuit et Basilides scribere evangelium, et suo illud nomine titulare.”” 


86 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


spective commentaries on Luke and Matthew; but there is 
no other notice of such a Gospel, or evidence of its existence, 
in all Christian antiquity, so far as is known. The work 
referred to could not have been a history of Christ’s minis- 
try, set up by Basilides and his followers in opposition to 
the Gospels received by the catholic Christians. In that 
case, we should certainly have heard of it from those who 
wrote in opposition to his heresy; but he and his followers 
are, on the contrary, represented as appealing to our Gospels 
of Matthew, Luke, and John;* and Hippolytus states ex- 
pressly that the Basilidian account of all things concerning 
the Saviour subsequent to the birth of Jésus agreed with 
that given “in the Gospels.” + The origin of the error is 
easily explained: a work in which Basilides set forth his 
view of the Gospel, 2.2. of the teaching of Christ, might 
naturally be spoken of as “the Gospel according to Basil- 
ides.” {| We have an account of such a work. Agrippa 
Castor, a contemporary of Basilides, and who, according to 
Eusebius, wrote a very able refutation of him, tells us that 
Basilides ‘‘composed twenty-four books on the Gospel,” εἰς τὸ 
εὐαγγέλιον. Clement of Alexandria, who is one of our prin- 
cipal authorities for his opinions, cites his ᾿Εξηγητικά, “ Exposi- 
tions,” or “Interpretations,” quoting a long passage from 
“the twenty-third book.”** In the “Dispute between 
Archelaus and Manes,” the “thirteenth treatise”’ of Basi- 
lides is cited, containing an explanation of the parable of 
the Rich Man and Lazarus.f{+ I agree with Dr. Hort in 
thinking it exceedingly probable that the work of Basilides 
which Hippolytus cites so often in his account of his opin- 
ions is the same which is quoted by Clement and Archelaus, 
and mentioned by Agrippa Castor.t{{ Lipsius remarks :— 


*Besides the work of Hippolytus, to be further noticed, see the passages from Clement of 
Alexandria and Epiphanius in Kirchhofer’s Quellensammlung, Ὁ. 415 f. 


+ Ref. Her. c. 27, orc. 16, Eng. trans. 

+ On this use of the term “Gospel,” see Norton, Genuzneness, etc., 11. 224 ff., or abridged 
edition, p. 343 f. 

|| Euseb. Hzst. Acc. iv. 7. δὲ 6, 7. 

** Stromt, iv. 12, Ὁ. 599 f. 

tt Archelai et Manetis Disputatio, c. 55, in Routh, Red. sacra, ed. alt., v. 197. 

tt See the art. Baszlides in Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christian Biog., vol.i. (1877), Pp. 273. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 87 


In any case, the work must have been an exposition of some Gospel 
by whose authority Basilides endeavored to establish his Gnostic doc- 
trine. And. it is anyhow most unlikely that he would have written a 
commentary on a Gospel of his own composition. Of our canonical 
Gospels, those of Matthew, Luke, and John, were used in his school; and 
from the fragments just referred to we may reasonably conclude that it 
was the Gospel of Luke on which he wrote his commentary.* 


On this it may be observed, that the phrase of Agrippa 
Castor, “twenty-four books on 246 Gospel,’ excludes the 
idea that any particular Gospel, like that of Luke, could be 
intended. Such a Gospel would have been named or other- 
wise defined. The expression τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, if it refers to any 
book, must signify, in accordance with that use of the term 
which has before been illustrated,t “the Gospels” collec- 
tively. It is so understood by Norton,{ Tischendorf, Lu- 
thardt, Godet, and others. It would not in itself xecessarily 
denote precisely our fowr Gospels, though their use by 
Justin Martyr, and the fact that Luke and John are com- 
mented on by Basilides, and Matthew apparently referred to 
by him, would make it probable that they were meant. 

There is, however, another sense of the word ‘‘ Gospel” as 
used by Basilides,— namely, “the knowledge (gvoszs) of su- 
permundane things” (Hippol. Ref. Her. vii. 27); and “ the 
Gospel” in this sense plays a prominent part in his system 
as set forth by Hippolytus. The “twenty-four books on 
the Gospel” mentioned by Agrippa Castor, the ‘ Exposi- 
tions” or ‘‘Interpretations”’ of Clement, may perhaps have 
related to “the Gospel” in this sense. We cannot there- 
fore, I think, argue confidently from this title that Basilides 
wrote a Commentary on our Four Gospels, though it natu- 
rally suggests this. It is evident, at any rate, that he 
supported his gzoszs by far-fetched interpretations of the 
sayings of Christ as recorded in our Gospels; and that the 
supposition that he had a Gospel of his own composition, in 
the sense of a history of Christ’s life and teaching, has not 
only no positive support of any strength, but is on various 


* See the art. Gosfe/s in the work just cited, ii. 715. Comp. Hilgenfeld, 25 δεῖ, p. 47. 
t See above, p. 24. 
See Norton’s Genuineness of the Gospels, 2d ed., iii. 235-239, or abridged edition, p. 351 ff. 


88 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


accounts utterly improbable. That he used an apocryphal 
Gospel zot of his own composition is a supposition for 
which there is not a particle of evidence of any kind whatever. 

I have spoken of Basilides as quoting the Gospel of John 
in the citations from him by Hippolytus. The passages are 
the following: “And this, he says, is what is said in the 
Gospels: ‘The true light, which enlighteneth every man, 
was coming into the world.’” (Ref Her. vii. 22, orc. 10, 
Eng. trans.) The words quoted agree exactly with John 
i. 9 in the Greek, though I have adopted a different con- 
struction from that of the common version in translating. 
Again, “And that each thing, he says, has its own seasons, 
the Saviour is a sufficient witness, when he says, ‘ My hour 
is mot yet come” , (Re. d7e@rv; vil. 27, a). Το; Jonna 4) 

Here two objections are raised: first, that we cannot 
infer from the φησί, “he says,” that Hippolytus is quoting 
from a treatise by Basilides himself; and, secondly, that the 
system of Basilides as set forth by Hippolytus represents a 
later development of the original scheme,— in other words, 
that he is quoting the writings and describing the opinions 
of the disciples of the school, and not of its founder. 

To analyze the account of Hippolytus and give the rea- 
sons for taking a different view would require an article by 
itself, and cannot be undertaken here. But on the first 
point I will quote a writer who will not be suspected of an 
“apologetic” tendency, Matthew Arnold. He says:— 


It is true that the author of the Phzlosophumena [another name 
for the “ Refutation of all Heresies ” commonly ascribed to Hippolytus] 
sometimes mixes up the opinions of the master of a school with those 
of his followers, so that it is difficult to distinguish between them. But, 
if we take all doubtful cases of the kind and compare them with our 
present case, we shall find that it is not one of them. It is not true 
that here, where the name of Basileides has come just before, and 
where no mention of his son or of his disciples has intervened since, 
there is any such ambiguity as is found in other cases. It is not true 
that the author of the Phzlosophumena wields the subjectless he says in 
the random manner alleged, with no other formula for quotation both 
from the master and from the followers. In general, he uses the for- 
mula according to them (κατ᾽ αὐτούς) when he quotes from the school, and 
the formula e says (φησ when he gives the dicta of the master. And 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 89 


in this particular case he manifestly quotes the dicta of Basileides, and 
no one who had not a theory to serve would ever dream of doubting it. 
Basileides, therefore, about the year 125 of our era, had before him the 
Fourth Gospel.* 


On the second point, the view that Hippolytus as con- 
trasted with Irenzeus has given an account of the system of 
Basilides himself is the prevailing one among scholars : it is 
held, for example, by Jacobi, Bunsen, Baur, Hase, Uhlhorn, 
Moller, Mansel, Pressensé, and Dr. Hort. The principal 
representative of the opposite opinion is Hilgenfeld, with 
whom agree Lipsius, Volkmar, and Scholten. Dr. Hort 
has discussed the matter very ably and fairly in his article 
Basilides in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biog- 
raphy; and, so far as I can judge, his conclusions are sound. 

In view of all the evidence, then, I think we have good 
reason for believing that the Gospel of John was one of a 
collection of Gospels, probably embracing our four, which 
Basilides and his followers received as authoritative about 
the year 125. : 

The first heretics described by Hippolytus are the Oriental 
Gnostics,— the Ophites, or Naassenes, and the Peratz, a 
kindred sect. They are generally regarded as the earliest 
Gnostics. Hippolytus cites from their writings numerous 
quotations from the Gospel of John.£ But it is the view 
of many scholars that Hippolytus is really describing the 
opinions and quoting the writings of the later representa- 
tives of these sects.|| Not having investigated this point 
sufficiently, I shall argue only from what is undisputed. 

Were I undertaking a full discussion of the external evi- 
dences of John’s authorship of the Fourth Gospel, it would 
be necessary to consider here some questions about Papias, 


*Matthew Arnold, God and the Bible (1875), p. 268 f., Eng. ed. See, to the same effect, 
Weizsiicker, Untersuchungen u. s. W., p. 232 ff. Compare Dr. Hort, art. Baszlides in Smith and 
Wace’s Dict. of Christian Biog., i. 271, and Westcott, Canon of the N.T., 4th ed., p. 288. On 
the other side, see Scholten, Die Gltesten Zeugnisse u. 5. w. (1867), p. 65 £.; Sup. Rel., ii. 51, 
7th ed., and the writers there cited. 

+ The two most recent discussions are that by Jacobi, in Brieger’s Zeitschrift fiir Kirchen- 
geschichte, 1876-77, i. 481-544, and, on the other side, by Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschrift 7, wiss. 
Theol., 1878, xxi. 228-250, where the literature of the subject is given pretty fully. Moeller, in a 
brief notice of the two articles (Brieger’s Zeztschrift, 1877-78, ii. 422), adheres to his former view, 
versus Hilvenfeld. 


$Ref. Her. v. 7-9 (Naassenes), 12, 16, 17 (Peratz). 
|| See Lipsius in Hilgenfeld’s Zeztschr., 1863, p. 410 ἔ; 1854, p. 37 f. 


go CRITICAL ESSAYS 


and his use of the First Epistle of John, as reported by 
Eusebius; also the apparent reference to the First Epistle 
of John by Polycarp, and his relation to Irenzeus ; and, fur- 
ther, to notice the Ignatian Epistles, the ‘Testaments of 
the Twelve Patriarchs,” and the Epistle to Diognetus. On 
the first two subjects, and on “The Silence of Eusebius,” 
connected with the former, I would refer to the very able 
articles of Professor (now Bishop) Lightfoot in the Contem- 
porary Review.* As to the Ignatian Epistles, their genuine- 
ness in any form is questionable, to say nothing of the state 
of the text, though the shorter Epistles may belong, in sub- 
stance, to the middle of the second century; the ‘‘Testa- 
ments of the Twelve Patriarchs ”’ are interpolated, and need 
a thoroughly critical edition ; and the date of the Epistle to 
Diognetus is uncertain. In any event, I do not think the 
references to the Gospel of John in these writings are of 
great importance. 

But to return to our proper subject. The use of the 
Gospel of John by the Gnostic sects, in the second century, 
affords a strong, it may seem decisive, argument for its 
genuineness. However ingeniously they might pervert its 
meaning, it is obvious to every intelligent reader that this 
Gospel is, in reality, diametrically opposed to the essential 
principles of Gnosticism. The Christian Fathers, in their 
contests with the Gnostics, found it an armory of weapons. 
Such being the case, let us suppose it to have been forged 
about the middle of the second century, in the heat of the 
Gnostic controversy. It was thus a book which the founders 
of the Gnostic sects, who flourished ten, twenty, or thirty 
years before, had never heard of. How is it possible, then, 
to explain the fact that their followers should have not only 
received it, but have received it, so far as appears, without 
question or discussion? It must have been received by the 


* Contemporary Review, January, 1875, xxv. 169 ff., ‘‘The Silence of Eusebius’’; May, 1875, 
p. 827 ff., “‘ Polycarp of Smyrna”; August and October, 1875, xxvi. 377 ff., 828 ff., ‘Papias 
of Hierapolis.’? On ‘‘the silence of Eusebius,” see also Westcott, Canon of the N. T., 4th ed., 
p. 229f. With Lightfoot’s article in the Contemp. Review for February, 1875, ‘‘The, Ignatian 
Epistles,” should be compared the Preface to Supernatural Religion, in the sixth and later 
editions of that work. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL gt 


founders of these sects from the beginning; and we have no 
reason to distrust the testimony of Hippolytus to what is 
under these circumstances so probable, and is attested by 
other evidence. But, if received by the founders of these 
sects, it must have been received at the same time by the 
catholic Christians. They would not, at a later period, 
have taken the spurious work from the heretics with whom 
they were in controversy. It was then generally received, 
both by Gnostics and their opponents, between the years 
120 and 130. What follows? It follows that the Gnostics 
of that date received it because they could not help it. 
They would not have admitted the authority of a book which 
could be reconciled with their doctrines only by the most 
forced interpretation, if they could have destroyed its au- 
thority by denying its genuineness. Its genuineness could 
then be easily ascertained. Ephesus was one of the prin- 
cipal cities of the Eastern world, the centre of extensive 
commerce, the metropolis of Asia Minor. Hundreds, if not 
thousands, of people were living who had known the Apos- 
tle John. The question whether he, the beloved disciple, 
had committed to writing his recollections of his Master’s 
life and teaching, was one of the greatest interest. The 
fact of the reception of the Fourth Gospel as his work at 
so early a date, by parties so violently opposed to each 
other, proves that the evidence of its genuineness was deci- 
sive. This argument is further confirmed by the use of the 
Gospel by the opposing parties in the later Montanistic con- 
troversy, and in the disputes about the time of celebrating 
Easter. 


IV. Tue last external evidence which I shall adduce in 
favor of the genuineness of the Gospel of John is of a very 
early date, being attached to the Gospel itself, and found in 
all the copies which have come down to us, whether in the 
original or in ancient versions. I refer to what is now num- 
bered as the twenty-fifth verse, with the last half of the 
twenty-fourth, of the concluding chapter of the Gospel. 
The last three verses of the chapter read thus: ‘“ Hence 


92 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


this report spread among the brethren, that that disciple 
was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would 
not die; but, If I will that he remain till I come, what is 
that to thee? This is the disciple that testifieth concerning 
these things, and wrote these things.” Here, I suppose, 
the author of the Gospel ended. The addition follows: 
“And we know that Azs testimony is true. And there are 
many other things that Jesus did, which, if they should be 
severally written, 7 do not think that the world itself would 
contain the books written.” 

In the words “And we know that zs testimony is true,” 
we manifestly have either a real or a forged attestation to 
the truth and genuineness of the Gospel. Suppose the 
Gospel written by an anonymous forger of the middle of the 
second century: what possible credit could he suppose 
would be given to it by an anonymous attestation like this? 
A forger with such a purpose would have named his pre- 
tended authority, and have represented the attestation as 
formally and solemnly given. The attestation, as it stands, 
clearly presupposes that the author (or authors) of it was 
known to those who first received the copy of the Gospel 
containing it. 

What view, then, are we to take of it? The following 
supposition, which I give in the words of Mr. Norton, 
affords an easy and natural explanation, and, so far as I can 
see, the only plausible explanation of the phenomena. Mr. 
Norton says :— 

According to ancient accounts, St. John wrote his Gospel at Ephesus, 
over the church in which city he presided during the latter part of his 
long life. It is not improbable that, before his death, its circulation had 
been confined to the members of that church. Hence copies of it would 
be afterwards obtained; and the copy provided for transcription was, we 
may suppose, accompanied by the strong attestation which we now find, 
given by the church, or the elders of the church, to their full faith in the 


accounts which it contained, and by the concluding remark, made by the 
writer of this attestation in his own person.* 


The style of this addition, it is further to be observed, 


*Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels, 2d ed., vol. i., Addit. Notes, p. xcv. f. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 93 


differs from that of the writer of the Gospel. It was prob- 
ably first written a little separate from the text, and after- 
wards became incorporated with it by a natural mistake of 
transcribers. According to Tischendorf, the last verse of 
this Gospel in the Codex Sinaiticus is written in a different 
hand from the preceding, though by a contemporary scribe. 
He accordingly rejects it as not having belonged to the 
Gospel as it was originally written. Tregelles does not 
agree with him on the palzographical question. 

The passage we have been considering suggests various 
questions and remarks, but cannot be further treated here. 
I will only refer to the recent commentaries of Godet and 
Westcott, and end abruptly the present discussion, which 
has already extended to a far greater length than was 
originally intended. 


Note A. (Seep. 24.) 


ON THE QUOTATIONS OF MATT. xi. 27 (comp. LUKE x. 22) IN THE WRITINGS 
OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 


Justin Martyr (Dza/. c. 100) quotes the following as “written in the Gospel”: 

“All things have been delivered (παραδέδοται) to me by the Father; and no 
one knoweth (γινώσκει) the Father save the Son, neither [knoweth any one] the 
Son save the Father, and they to whomsoever the Son may reveal him” (oi¢ ἂν 
ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψῃ). In the Apology (c. 63) he quotes the passage twice, thus: “No 
one £new (or “hath known,” ἔγνω) the Father save the Son, neither [knoweth 
any one] the Son save the Father, and they to whomsoever the Son may reveal 
him”; the order of the words, however, varying in the last clause, in which 
ὁ υἱός stands once after ἀποκαλύψῃ. 

It is unnecessary to quote the corresponding passages in our Gospels in full, 
as the reader can readily turn to them. The variations of Justin are, (1) the 
use of the perfect (παραδέδοται), “have been delivered,” instead of the aorist 
(παρεδόθη), strictly, “were delivered,” though our idiom often requires the aorist 
to be translated by the perfect; (2) “¢ze Father” for “my Father” (omitting 
ov); (3) the use, in two out of three instances, of the aorist ἔγνω, “knew,” or 
“hath known,” instead of the present γινώσκει (this is the word used by Luke; 
Matthew has ἐπιγενώσκει) ; (4) the transposition of the two principal clauses; 
(5) the omission of τις ἐπιγινώσκει, “knoweth any one,” in the second clause, if 
we compare Matthew, or the substitution of “the Father” and “the Son” for 
“who the Father is” and “who the Son is,” if we compare Luke; (6) the use 
of the plural (οἷς av), “ they to whomsoever,” instead of the singular (ᾧ av), “he 
to whomsoever”’; and (7) the substitution of “may reveal” ( ἀποκαλύψῃ ) for 
“may will to reveal” (βούληται ἀποκαλίμαι). 

The author of Supernatural Religion devotes more than ten pages to this pas- 


94 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


sage (vol. i. pp. 401-412, 7th ed.), which he regards as of great importance, and 
insists, on the ground of these variations, that Justin could not have taken it from 
our Gospels. To follow him step by step would be tedious. His fundamental 
error is the assertion that “the peculiar form of the quotation in Justin” (here he 
refers especially to the variations numbered 3 and 4, above) “occurred in what ἢ 
came to be considered heretical Gospels, and constituted the basis of important 
Gnostic doctrines ” (p. 403). Again, “Here we have the exact quotation twice 
made by Justin, with the ἔγνω and the same order, set forth as the reading of the 
Gospels of the Marcosians and other sects, and the highest testimony to their 
system ” (pp. 406, 407). Yet again, “Irenzeus states with equal distinctness that 
Gospels used by Gnostic sects had the reading of Justin” (p. 411). Now 
Irenzeus nowhere states any such thing. Irenzus nowhere speaks, nor does any 
other ancient writer, of a Gospel of the Marcosians. If this sect had set up 
a Gospel (#.c., a history of Christ’s ministry) of its own, in opposition to the 
Four Gospels received by the whole Christian Church in the time of Irenzeus, 
we should have had unequivocal evidence of the fact. The denunciations of 
Marcion for mutilating the Gospel of Luke show how such a work would have 
been treated. Irenzus is indignant that the Valentinians should give to 
“a recent work of their own composition” the name of “The Gospel of the 
Truth” or “The True Gospel” (Her. iii. 11. § 9); but this was in all prob- 
ability a doctrinal or speculative, not an historical work.* The Valentinians 
received our four Gospels without controversy, and argued from them in sup- 
port of their doctrines as best they could. (See Irenzus, Her. i. cc. 7, 8, for 
numerous examples of their arguments from the Gospels; and compare iii. 11. 
§7; 12.§12; and Tertull. Prescr. c. 38.) 

Correcting this fundamental error of the author of Supernatural Religion, the 
facts which he himself states respecting the various forms in which this passage 
is quoted by writers who unquestionably used our four Gospels as their sole or 
main authority, are sufficient to show the groundlessness of his conclusion. But 
for the sake of illustrating the freedom of the Christian Fathers in quotation, 
and the falsity of the premises on which this writer reasons, I will exhibit the 
facts somewhat more fully than they have been presented elsewhere, though 
the quotations of this passage have been elaborately discussed by Credner,t 
Semisch,t Hilgenfeld,|| Volckmar,** and Westcott.tt Of these discussions 
those by Semisch and Volckmar are particularly valuable. 

I will now notice all the variations of Justin from the text of our Gospels 
in this passage (see above), comparing them with those found in other writers. 
The two most important (Nos. 3 and 4) will be examined last. 

1. παραδέδοται for παρεδόθη is wholly unimportant. It is found in Luke x. 22 


* See Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels, iii. 227 £.; Westcott, Canon of the N. T., 4th ed., 
p. 297 ἴ.; Lipsius, art. Gospels, A pocryphal, in Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christian Biog., vol. 
ii. (1880), p. 717. 

t Bettriige zur Einl. in die biblischen Schriften (1832), i. pp. 248-251. 

+ Die apostol. Denkwiirdighkeiten des Miirt. Fustinus (1848), pp. De 70. 

|| Kvitische Untersuchungen tiber die Evangelien Fustin’s, u. 5. w. (1850), pp. 201-206, 

** Das Evang. Marcions (1852), pp. 75-80. I follow the title in spelling “Volckmar.” 


tt Canon of the N. T., 4th ed. (1875), pp. 133-135. See also Sanday, The Gostels in the 
Second Century, pp. 132, 133, and chaps. ii., iv., vi. : 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 95 


in the uncial MSS. K and II, the cursives 60, 253, p 8°", w ser, three of Colbert’s 
MSS. (see Wetstein zz Zoc. and his Prolegom. p. 48), and in HIPPOLyTus (Woé¢. 
c. 6), not heretofore noticed. 

2. “ The Father” for “my Father,” μου being omitted, is equally trivial; so 
in the Sinaitic MS. and the cursive 71 in Matthew, and in Luke the Codex 
Bezz (D), with some of the best MSS. of the Old Latin and Vulgate versions, 
and other authorities (see Tischendorf), also HIPPOLYTUS as above. 

5. The omission of τίς ἐπιγινώσκει or its equivalent in the second clause is 
found in the citation of the MARCOSIANS in Irenzus (i. 20. § 3), other GNosTICs 
in Irenzus (iv. 6. ὃ 1), and in IREN&us himself three times (ii. 6. ὃ 1; iv. 6. 88 3, 
7, but πού ὃ 1). It occurs twice in CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (Ped. i. 9, p. 150 
ed. Potter; Strom. i. 28, p. 425), once in ORIGEN (Ceé/s. vi. 17, p. 643), once in 
ATHANASIUS (Orat. cont. Arian. iii. c. 46, p. 596), 6 times in EPIPHANIUS 
(Ancor. c. 67, p. 71, repeated Her. Ixxiv. 4, p. 891; c. 73, p. 78, repeated Her. 
Ixxiv. I0, p. 898; and Her. Ixiv. 9, p. 643; Ixxvi. 7, 29, 32, Ppp. 943, 977; 981) 
once in CHRysostoM (/z Joan. Hom. 1x. §1, Opp. viii. 353 (404) A, ed. Montt.), 
once in PSEUDO-CyRIL (De Z7yiz. c. 1), once in Maximus CONFESSOR (Schol. in 
Dion. Areop. de div. Nom. c. τ. §2, in Migne, Patrol. Gr. iv. 189), once in 
JOANNES DAMASCENUS (De Fide Orth. i. 1) and twice in GEORGIUS PACHY- 
MERES (Paraphr. in Dion. Areop. de div. Nom. c. 1, §1, and de myst. Theol. c. 
5; Migne, 11]. 613, 1061). It is noticeable that the CLEMENTINE HOMILIES 
(xvii. 43;-Xvili. 4, 13 425, 20) do not here agree with Justin. 

6. There is no difference between οἷς av, “they to whomsoever,” and ᾧ ἄν (or 
ἐάν), “he to whomsoever,” so far as the sense is concerned. The plural, which 
Justin uses, is found in the CLEMENTINE HOMILIES 5 times (xvii. 4; xviil. 4, 
13 dis, 20), and IRENZUS 5 times (er. ii. 6. §1; iv. 6.§§ 3, 4, 7, and so the 
Syriac; 7. §3). The singular is used in the citations given by Irenzus from the 
MARCOSIANS (i. 20. ὃ 3) and “those who would be wiser than the Apostles,” as 
well as in his own express quotation from Matthew (er. iv. 6. ὃ 1); and so by 
the Christian Fathers generally. 

7. The next variation (οἷς av ὁ υἱὸς) ἀποκαλύψῃ for βούληται ἀποκαλύψαι is a 
natural shortening of the expression, which we find in the citation of the MAr- 
COSIANS (Iren. i. 20. ὃ 3) and in IREN&us himself 5 times (11. 6.§ 1; iv. 6. §§ 3, 4, 
7, and so the Syriac; 7.§ 3); in TERTULLIAN twice (Marc. iv. 25; Prescr.c. 21), 
and perhaps in Marcion’s mutilated Luke; in CLEMENT ΟΕ ALEXANDRIA 
5 times (Cohort. i. 10, p. 10; Ped. 1. 5, p. 109; Strom. i. 28, Ὁ. 425; v.13, p. 697; 
vii. 18, p. 901; — Quzs dives, etc., c. 8, p. 939, is a mere allusion); ORIGEN 4 
times (Cels. vi. 17, p- 643; vii. 44, p. 726; 27 Joan. tom. i. c. 42, p. 45; tom. xxxii. 
c. 18, p. 450); the SyNoD ΟΕ ANTIOCH against Paul of Samosata (Routh, Red/. 
sacre, ed. alt. iii. 290); EusEBIus or MARCELLUS in Eusebius 3 times (Zcc/. 
Theol. i. 15, 16, pp. 76°, 77 4, ἀποκαλύψει; Κεἰ. proph. i. 12 [Migne, Patrol. Gr. xxii. 
col. 1065], ἀποκαλύψῃ); ATHANASIUS 4 or 5 times (Decret. Wic. Syn. c. 12, Opp. 
1. 218 ed. Bened.; Ovat. cont. Arian. i. c. 12, p. 4163 C. 39, Pp. 443; 111. c. 46, p. 
596, in the best MSS.; Serm. maj. de Fide, c. 27, in Montf. Coll. nova, ii. 14); 
CYRIL OF JERUSALEM twice (Ca¢. vi. 6; x. 1); EPIPHANIUS 4 times (Azcor. c. 
67, p- 71, repeated Her. Ixxiv. 4, p. 891, but here ἀποκαλύπτει or -19; Her. Ixv. 
6, Ρ. 613; and without ὁ υἱός, Her. 1xxvi. 7, p. 943; Cc. 29, p. 977); BASIL THE 
GREAT (Adv. Eunom. v. Opp. i. 311 (441) A); CyrRIL oF ALEXANDRIA 3 times 
Thes. Opp. v. 131, 149; Cont. Julian. viii. Opp. vi. b. p. 270). 


96 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


All of these variations are obviously unimportant, and natural in quoting from 
memory, and the extent to which they occur in writers who unquestionably used 
our Gospels as their sole or main authority shows that their occurrence in Justin 
affords no ground for supposing that he did not also so use them. 

We will then turn our attention to the two variations on which the main stress 
is laid by the author of Supernatural Religion. He greatly exaggerates their 
importance, and neglects an obvious explanation of their origin. 

3. We find ἔγνω, “knew,” or “hath known,” for γινώσκει or ἐπιγινώσκει, in the 
CLEMENTINE HomILIEs 6 times (xvii. 4; Xvill. 4, 11, 13 42s, 20), and once appar- 
ently in the RECOGNITIONS (ii. 47, zovit); twice in TERTULLIAN (Adv. Mare. ii. 
27; Prescr. c. 21); in CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 6 times (Cohort. i. 10, p. 10; 
Ped. i. 5, p- 109; 1: 8, p. 1425 1. Ὁ, p. 150; Strom. i. 28, p. 4253 v- 13, με 6907 5; — 
once the present, γενώσκει, Strom. vii. 18, p. 901; and once, in a mere allusion, 
ἐπιγινώσκει, Quis dives, etc., c. 8, p. 939); ORIGEN uniformly, Io times (ΟΖ2. i. 440, 
643, 726; ii. 537; iv. 45, 234, 284, 315, 450 42s), and in the Latin version of his 
writings of which the Greek is lost zov7t is used Io times, including Of¢. iii. 58, 
where zov7t is used for Matthew and scz¢ for Luke; scz¢ occurs also ΟΖ. iv. 515- 
The SyNop oF ANTIOCH versus Paul of Samosata has it once (Routh, Re//. sacra, 
111. 290); ALEXANDER OF ALEXANDRIA once (/is¢. ad Alex. c. 5, Migne, Patr. 
Gr. xviii. 556); EUSEBIUS 6 times (Zcc/. Theol. i. 12, 16, pp. 72°, 779; Dem. 
Evang. iv. 3, Vv. 1, pp. 149°, 2164; cl. proph. i. 12, Migne xxii. 1065; ist. 
£iccl. 1. 2. §2); DiDyMUS OF ALEXANDRIA once (De 77171. 11. 5, p. 142); EPIPHA- 
NIUS twice (er. Ιχν. 6, p. 613; Ixxiv. 10, p. 898).— Of these writers, Alexander 
has οἷδε once; Eusebius γινώσκει or ἐπιγινώσκει 3 times, Didymus γινώσκει fol- 
lowed by ἐπεγενώσκει 3 times, Epiphanius has οὐδὲ g or ΤΟ times, and it is found 
also in Basil, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria. Marcellus in Eusebius 
(Eccl. Theol. i. 15, τό, pp- 76°, 784) wavers between οἷδε (twice) and γινώσκει or 
ἐπιγινώσκει (once), and perhaps ἔγνω (c. 16, p. 77%). 

4. We find the ¢ransposition of the clauses, ‘No one knoweth [ov knew] 
the Father” coming first, in one MS. in Matthew (Matthzi’s d) and two in Luke: 
(the uncial U and 1 51), in the Dzatessaron of TATIAN as its text is given in the 
Armenian version of Ephraem’s Commentary upon it, translated into Latin by 
Aucher, and published by G. Moesinger (Zvangeliz concordantis Expositio, etc., 
Venet. 1876),* the CLEMENTINE HOMILIES 5 times (xvii. 4; xviii. 4, 13 42s, 20), 
the MARCOSIANS in Irenzeus (1. 20. § 3), other GNOsTICS in Irenzus (iv. 6. § 1), 
and IRENus himself (ii. 6. §15; iv. 6. ὃ 3, versus §1 and §7, Zaz., but here a 
Syriac version represented by a MS. of the 6th century, gives the transposed 
form; see Harvey’s Irenzeus, ii. 443), TERTULLIAN once (Adv. Mare. iv. 25), 
ORIGEN once (De Princip. 11. 6. §1, Opp. i. 89, in a Latin version), the SyNoD 
OF ANTIOCH against Paul of Samosata (as cited above), the MARCIONITE in 
PsEuDo-ORIG. Dial. de recta in Deum fide, sect. i. Opp. i. 817); EUSEBIUS 4 
times (Zccl. Theol. i. 12; Dem. Evang. iv. 3, v. 1; Hist. Eccl. i. 2. § 2), ALEXAN- 
DER OF ALEXANDRIA once (2 22:2. ad Alex. c. 12, Migne xvill. 565); ATHANASIUS 
twice (/7 zlud, Omnia mthi tradita sunt, c. 5, Opp. i. 107; Serm. maj. de Fide, c. 
27,in Montf. Coll. nova, 11. 14), DIDyMUS once (De 77,771. i. 26, p. 72), EPIPHA- 
NIuS 7 times, or 9 times if the passages transferred from the Avcoratus are reck- 
oned (ΟΖ. i. 766, 891, 898, 977, 981; ii. 16, 19, 67, 73), CHRYSOSTOM once (Zz 


* This reads (pp. 117, 216), “‘ Nemo novit Patrem nisi Filius, et nemo novit Filium nisi Pater.”’ 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 97 


Ascens., etc., c. 14, Opp. iii. 771 (931) ed. Montf.), PSEUDO-CYRIL OF ALEXAN- 
DRIA once (De Trin. c. 1, Opp. vi. c. p. 1), PSEUDO-CAESARIUS twice (Dial. 
1. resp. 3 and 20, in Migne xxxviii. 861, 877), MAXIMUS CONFESSOR once (Scho. 
iz Dion. Areop. de div. Nom. c. 1. §2, in Migne iv. 189), JOANNES DAMAS- 
CENUS once (De #ide Orth. i. 1), and GEORGIUS PACHYMERES once (faraphr. 
im Dion. Areop. de div. Nom. c. 1. §1, in Migne iii. 613). 

This transposition is found in MS. b of the Old Latin, and some of the 
Latin Fathers, ¢.g., Pheebadius (Cot. Arian. c. 10); and most MSS. of the Old 
Latin, and the Vulgate, read zovzt in Matthew instead of sczt or cognosczt, which 
they have in Luke; but it is not worth while to explore this territory here. 

It is manifest from this presentation of the facts that the variations to which 
the author of Supernatural Religion attaches so much importance,— the trans- 
position of the clauses, and the use of the past tense for the present,— being not 
peculiar to Justin and the heretics, but found in a multitude of the Christian 
Fathers, can afford no proof or presumption that the source of his quotation 
was not our present Gospels — that he does not use in making it (D7a/. c. 100) 
the term “the Gospel” in the same sense in which it is used by his later con- 
temporaries. It indeed seems probable that the reading ἔγνω, though not in the 
MSS. which have come down to us, had already found its way into some MSS. 
of the second century, particularly in Matthew. Its almost uniform occurrence 
in the numerous citations of the passage by Clement of Alexandria and Origen, 
and the reading of the Old Latin MSS. and of the Vulgate, favor this view. 
The transposition of the clauses may also have been found in some MSS. of 
that date, as we even now find its existence in several manuscripts. But it is not 
necessary to suppose this; the Fathers, in quoting, make such transpositions 
with great freedom. The stress laid on the transposition in Supernatural Relig- 
zon is very extravagant. It did not affect the sense, but merely made more 
prominent the knowledge and the revelation of the Father by Christ. The 
importance of the change from the present tense to the past is also preposter- 
ously exaggerated. It merely expressed more distinctly what the present implied. 
Further, these variations admit of an easy explanation. In preaching Chris- 
tianity to unbelievers, special emphasis would be laid on the fact that Christ 
had come to give mena true knowledge of God, of God in his paternal char- 
acter. The transposition of the clauses in quoting this striking passage, which 
must have been often quoted, would thus be very natural; and so would be the 
change from the present tense to the past. The Gnostics, moreover, regarding 
the God of the Old Testament as an inferior and imperfect being, maintained 
that the true God, the Supreme, had been wholly unknown to men before he 
was revealed by Christ. They would, therefore, naturally quote the passage in 
the same way; and the variation at an early period would become wide-spread. 
That Irenzus should notice a difference between the form in which the Gnostics 
quoted the text and that which he found in his own copy of the Gospels is not 
strange; but there is nothing in what he says which implies that it was anything 
more than a various reading or corruption of the text of Matthew or Luke; he 
nowhere charges the Gnostics with taking it from Gospels peculiar to them- 
selves. It is their zz¢erpretation of the passage rather than their text which he 
combats. The change of order further occurs frequently in writers who are 
treating of the divinity of Christ, as Athanasius, Didymus, Epiphanius. Here 
the occasion seems to have been that the fact that Christ alone fully knew the 


98 CRITICAL ESSAYS ‘ 

Father was regarded as proving his deity, and the transposition of the clauses 
gave special prominence to that fact. Another occasion was the circumstance 
that when the Father and the Son are mentioned together in the New Testament, 
the name of the Father commonly stands first; and the transposition was the 
more natural in the present case, becruse, as Semisch remarks, the word 
“Father” immediately precedes. 

In this statement, I have only exhibited those variations in the quotation of 
this text by the Fathers which correspond with those of Justin. These give a 
very inadequate idea of the extraordinary variety of forms in which the passage 
appears. I will simply observe, by way of specimen, that, while Eusebius quotes 
the passage at least eleven times, none of his quotations verbally agree. (See 
Cont. Marcel. i. 1, p.6%; Eccl. Theol. i. 12, 15, 16 bis, 20, pp. 72°, 76°, 779%, 
78°, 884; Dem. Evang. iv. 3, v. 1, pp. 149°, 216%; Comm. in Ps. cx.; Lc. 
proph.i.12; Hist. Eccl.i.2.§2.) The two quotations which he introduces from 
Marcellus (Zcc/. Theol. i. 15 and 16) present a still different form. In three of 
Eusebius’s quotations for εἰ μὴ ὁ πατῆρ he reads εἰ μὴ 6 μόνος yevvyoag αὐτὸν πατήρ 
(Zccl. Theol. i. 12, p. 725; Dem. Evang. iv. 3, p. 149°; and Fist. Eccl. i. 2. § 2). 
If this were found in Justin Martyr, it would be insisted that it must have come 
from some apocryphal Gospel, and the triple recurrence would be thought to 
prove it.* The variations in Epiphanius, who also quotes the passage eleven 
times (not counting the transfers from the Avzcoratus), are perhaps equally 
remarkable. PsEUDO-CA:SARIUS quotes it thus (Déal. i. resp. 3): Οὐδεὶς yap 
olde τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱός, οὐδὲ τὸν υἱόν τις ἐπίσταται εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ. But 
the false premises from which the author of Szpernatural Religion reasons 
have been sufficiently illustrated. 

This Note is too long to allow the discussion of some points which need a 
fuller treatment. I will only call attention to the fact that in the list of passages 
iz our Gospels which Irenzeus (1. 20. § 2) represents the Marcosians as pervert- 
ing, there is one which presents a difficulty, and which some have supposed to 
be taken from an apocryphal Gospel. As it stands, the text is corrupt, and the 
passage makes no sense. Mr. Norton in the frst edition of his Genuineness of the 
Gospels (1837), vol. i. Addit. Notes, p. ccxlii., has given a plausible conjectural 
_ emendation of the text in Irenzus, which serves to clear up the difficulty. For 
* the πολλάκις ἐπεθύμησα of Irenzeus he would read πολλοὶ καὶ ἐπεθύμησαν, for δεῖν, 
εἶναι (so the old Latin version), and for διὰ τοῦ ἑνός, διὰ τοῦ ἐροῦντος. The 
passage then becomes a modification of Matt. xiii. 17. Dr. Westcott (Canon 
of the N. T., 4th ed., p. 306) proposes ἐπεθύμηδαν for ἐπεθύμησα, without being 
aware that his conjecture had been anticipated. But that change alone does 
not restore sense to the passage. The masterly review of Credner’s hypothesis 
that Justin’s Memoirs were the so-called “Gospel according to Peter,” which 
contains Mr. Norton’s emendation to which I have referred, was not reprinted 
in the second edition of his work. It seemed to me, therefore, worth while to 
notice it here. 


* Compare Supernatural Religion, i. 341. 


AUTHORSHI” OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 99 


ΝΘ ΒΒ. (See p- 25;) 
ON THE TITLE, “MEMOIRS BY 274 APOSTLES.” 


In regard to the use of the article here, it may be well to notice the points 
made by Hilgenfeld, perhaps the ablest and the fairest of the German critics 
who regard some apocryphal Gospel or Gospels as the chief source of Justin’s 
quotations. His book is certainly the most valuable which has appeared on 
that side of the question.* 

In the important passage (D7a/. c. 103), in which Justin says, “In the 
Memoirs which I affirm to have been composed by the Apostles of Christ and 
their companions (4 yc ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκείνοις παρακολουθη- 
σάντων συντετά χθα!), it is written that sweat, like drops of blood [or “clots,” 
θρόμβοι], flowed from him while he was praying” (comp. Luke xxii. 44), and 
which Semisch very naturally compares, as regards its description of the 
Gospels, with a striking passage of Tertullian,t Hilgenfeld insists — 


(1) That the article denotes “the collective body” (de Gesammtheit) of the 
Apostles and their companions. 

(2) “The Memoirs by the Apostles” is the phrase generally used by Justin. 
This might indeed be justified by the fact that the Gospels of Mark and Luke 
were regarded as founded on the direct communications of Apostles or sanc- 
tioned by them; but this, Hilgenfeld says, is giving up the sharp distinction 
between the Gospels as written two of them by Apostles and two by Apostolic 
men. 

(3) The fact that Justin appeals to the “ Memoirs by the Afosé/es” for inci- 
dents, like the visit of the Magi, which are recorded by only oe apostle, 
“shows clearly the utter indefiniteness of this form of expression.” { ‘ Mani- 
festly, that single passage,” namely, the one quoted above (Dia/. c. 103), “ must 
be explained in accordance with Justin’s general use of language.” 

Let us examine these points. As to (1), the supposition that Justin con- 
ceived of his “ Memoirs” as “composed” or “written” —these are the words 
he uses—by “the collective body” of the Apostles of Christ and “the col- 
lective body” of their companions is a simple absurdity. 

(2) and (3). For Justin’s purpose, it was important, and it was sufficient, to 
represent the “Memoirs” to which he appealed as resting on the authority of 
the Apostles. But in one place he has described them more particularly; and 
it is simply reasonable to say that the more general expression should be 
interpreted in accordance with the precise description, and not, as Hilgenfeld 
strangely contends, the reverse. 


*See his Kritische Untersuchungen tiber die Evangelien Fustin’s, der clementinischen 
Hlomilien und Marcion’s (Halle, 1850), p. 13 ff. 


tAdv. Marc. iv. 2: Constituimus inprimis evangelicum instrumentum apostolos auctores 
habere. . . . Si et apostolicos, non tamen solos, sed cum apostolis et post apostolos. . . . Denique 
nobis fidem ex apostolis Ioannes et Matthazus insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus 
instaurant. 


+ Hilgenfeld also refers to Justin (Dza/. c. τοι, p. 328, comp. AZol. i. 38) for a passage relating 
to the mocking of Christ at the crucifixion, which Justin, referring to the ‘‘ Memoirs,” describes 
‘‘in a form,’’ as he conceives, ‘‘ essentially differing from all our canonical Gospels.’? Τὸ me it 
appears that the agreement is essential, and the difference of slight importance and easily 
explained; but to discuss the matter here would be out of place, and would carry us too far. 


100 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


(3) The fact that Justin appeals to the “Memoirs by the Apostles” for an 
incident which is related by only oxe Apostle is readily explained by the fact 
that he gives this title to the Gospels considered collectively, just as he once 
designates them as εὐαγγέλια, “Gospels,” and twice as τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, “the 
Gospel.” The usage of the Christian Fathers in quoting is entirely analogous. 
They constantly cite passages as contained “in the Gospels” which are found 
only in oze Gospel, simply because “the Gospels” was a term used interchange- 
ably with “the Gospel,” to denote the four Gospels conceived of as one book. 
For examples of this use of the plural, see the note to p. 24. To the instances 
there given, many might easily be added. 

Hilgenfeld, in support of his view of the article here, cites the language of 
Justin where, in speaking of the new birth, he says, “And the reason for this 
we have learned from ¢ke Apostles” (Afol.i.61). Here it seems to me not 
improbable that Justin had in mind the language of Christ as recorded by the 
Apostles John and Matthew in John iii. 6, 7, and Matt. xviii. 3,4. That he had 
no particular Apostles or apostolic writings in view —that by “the Apostles” 
he meant vaguely “the collective body of the Apostles” does not appear likely. 
The statement must have been founded on something which he had read 
somewhere. 


IN OME ΘΟ: [5886 ps ὅθ) 


JUSTIN MARTYR AND THE “GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS.” 


After remarking that the “Gospel according to the Hebrews” was “almost 
universally regarded in.the first centuries as the Hebrew original of our canon- 
ical Gospel of St. Matthew,” that Greek versions of it “must have existed at a 
very early date,” and that “at various times and in different circles it took very 
different shapes,” Lipsius observes: ‘“‘The fragments preserved in the Greek 
by Epiphanius betray very clearly their dependence on our canonical Gospels. 
... The Aramaic fragments also contain much that can be explained and under- 
stood only on the hypothesis that it is a recasting of the canonical text.... 
The narrative of our Lord’s baptism (Epiphan. Her. xxx. 13), with its threefold 
voice from heaven, is evidently a more recent combination of older texts, of 
which the first is found in the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke; the second in 
the text of the Cambridge Cod. Beze at St. Luke iii. 22, in Justin Martyr (Dial. 
c. Zryphon. 88, 103), and Clemens Alexandrinus (Pedag. i. 6, p. 113, Potter); 
the third in our canonical Gospel of St. Matthew. And this very narrative may 
suffice to prove that the so-called ‘Hebrew’ text preserved by St. Jerome is by 
no means preferable to that of our canonical Gospel of St. Matthew, and even 
less original than the Greek text quoted by Epiphanius.”* ‘The attempt to 
prove that Justin Martyr and the Clementine Homilies had one extra-canonical 


*Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christian Biog., vol. ii. (1880), p. 710. Many illustrations are 
here given of the fact that most of the quotations which have come down to us from the ‘‘ Gospel 
of the Hebrews ”’ belong to a later period, and represent a later stage of theological develop- 
ment, than our canonical Gospels. Mangold agrees with Lipsius. See the note in his edition of 
Bleek’s Einlettung in das N. T., 38 Aufl. (1875), p. 132 f. Dr. E. A. Abbott, art. Gospels in 
the ninth ed. of the Encyclopedia Britannica (x. 818, note), takes the same view. He finds no 
evidence that Justin Martyr made any use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL ΙΟΙ 


authority common to them both, either in the Gospel of the Hebrews or in the 
Gospel of St. Peter,... has altogether failed. It is only in the rarest cases that 
they literally agree in their deviations from the text of our Gospels; they differ 
in their citations as much, for the most part, one from the other as they do from 
the text of the synoptical evangelists, even in such cases when one or the other 
repeatedly quotes the same passage, and each time in the same words. Only in 
very few cases is the derivation from the Gospel of the Hebrews probable, as in 
the saying concerning the new birth (Justin M. Afo/. i. 61; Clem. Homilies, xi. 
26; Recogn. vi. 9);..- in most cases... it is quite enough to assume that the 
quotations were made from memory, and so account for the involuntary con- 
fusion of evangelic texts.” (7 1α. p. 712.) 

Mr. E. B. Nicholson, in his elaborate work on the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews (Lond. 1879), comes to the conclusion that “there are no proofs that 
Justin used the Gospel according to the Hebrews at all” (p. 135). He also 
observes, “There is no reason to suppose that the authorship of the Gospel 
according to the Hebrews was attributed to the Apostles generally in the 2d or 
even the 3d cent. Irenzus calls it simply ‘that Gospel which is according to 
Matthew ’” (p. 134). 

Holtzmann in the eighth volume of Bunsen’s Azbe/werk (1866) discusses at 
length the subject of apocryphal Gospels. He comes to the conclusion that 
the “Gospel of the Hebrews” or “of the Nazarenes” was an Aramaic redac- 
tion (Bearbeitung) of our Matthew, executed in an exclusively Jewish-Christian 
spirit, making some use of Jewish-Christian traditions, but presupposing the 
Synoptic and the Pauline literature. It was probably made in Palestine for the 
Jewish-Christian churches some time in the second century (p. 547). The 
Gospel of the Ebionites, for our knowledge of which we have to depend almost 
wholly on Epiphanius, a very untrustworthy writer, Holtzmann regards as “a 
Greek recasting (Ueberarbeitung) of the Synoptic Gospels, with peculiar Jewish- 
Christian traditions and theosophic additions ” (p. 553). 

Professor Drummond, using Kirchhofer’s Quellensammlung, has compared 
the twenty-two fragments of the Gospel according to the Hebrews there col- 
lected (including those of the Gospel of the Ebionites) with Justin’s citations 
from or references to the Gospels, of which he finds about one hundred and 
seventy. I give his result :— 

“With an apparent exception to be noticed presently, not one of the twenty- 
two quotations from the lost Gospel is found among these one hundred and 
seventy. But this is not all. While thirteen deal with matters not referred to 
in Justin, nine admit of comparison; and in these nine instances not only does 
Justin omit everything that is characteristic of the Hebrew Gospel, but in 
some points he distinctly differs from it, and agrees with the canonical Gospels. 
There is an apparent exception. Justin quotes the voice from heaven at the 
baptism in this form, ‘Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.’ ‘This 
day have I begotten thee’ is also in the Ebionite Gospel;* but there it is 
awkwardly appended to a second saying, thus: ‘Thou art my beloved Son; in 
thee was I well pleased; and again, This day have I begotten thee’;—so that 
the passage is quite different from Justin’s, and has the appearance of being a 
later patchwork. Justin’s form of quotation is still the reading of the Codex 


*See Epiphanius, Wey. xxx. 13; Nicholson, The Gospel according to the Hebrews, p. 40 
ff.— E. A. 


102 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Bez in Luke, and, according to Augustine, was found in good MSS., though 
it was said not to be in the older ones. (See Tischend. in loco.)* One other 
passage is appealed to. Justin says that, when Jesus went down upon the water, 
a fire was kindled in the Jordan,—zip ἀνήφϑη ἐν τᾷ *Iopdavy. The Ebionite 
Gospel relates that, when Jesus came up from the water, immediately a great 
light shone round the place,— εὐθὺς περιέλαμψε τὸν τόπον φῶς péya. This fact 
is, I believe, the main proof that Justin used the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews, and that we may therefore have recourse to it, whenever he differs 
verbally from the existing Gospels. Considering that the events recorded are 
not the same, that they are said to have happened at different times, and that 
the two quotations do not agree with one another in a single word, this argu- 
ment cannot be considered very convincing, even by those who do not require 
perfect verbal accuracy in order to identify a quotation. But, further, the 
author of the anonymous Liber de Rebaptismate says that this event was 
related in an heretical work entitled Pauli Predicatio, and that it was not 
found in any Gospel: ‘Item cum baptizaretur, ignem super aquam esse visum; 
quod in evangelio nullo est scriptum.’ (Routh, Rel. Sac. v. pp. 325, 326 [c. 
14, Routh; c. 17, Hartel.]) Of course the latter statement may refer only to 
the canonical Gospels.”+ To this it may be added that a comparison of the 
fuller collection of fragments of “the Gospel according to the Hebrews” given 
by Hilgenfeld or Nicholson (the latter makes out a list of thirty-three frag- 
ments) would be still less favorable to the supposition that Justin made use of 
this Gospel. 

In the quotations which I have given from these independent writers, I have 
not attempted to set forth in full their views of the relation of the original 
Hebrew Gospel to our Greek Matthew, still less my own; but enough has been 
said to show how little evidence there is that the “Gospel of the Hebrews” 
in one form or another either constituted Justin’s “Memoirs,” or was the 
principal source from which he drew his knowledge of the life of Christ. 
While I find nothing like froof that Justin made use of any apocryphal Gospel, 
the question whether he may in a few instances have done so is wholly 
unimportant. Such a use would not in his case, any more than in that of the 
later Fathers, as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Jerome, imply that he placed 
such a work on a level with our four Gospels. 

The notion that Justin used mainly the “Gospel according to Peter,” which 
is assumed, absolutely without evidence, to have been a form of the “Gospel 
according to the Hebrews,” rests almost wholly on the hypothesis, for which 
there is also not a particle of evidence, that this Gospel was mainly used by the 


ἜΤΙ is the reading also (in Luke iii. 22) of the best MSS. of the old Latin version or versions, 
of Ciement of Alexandria, Methodius, Lactantius, Juvencus, Hilary of Poitiers in several 
places, Hilary the deacon (if he is the author of Questiones Vet. οὐ Nov. Test.), and Faustus the 
Manichzan ; and Augustine quotes it once without remark. It seems to be presupposed in the 
Apostolical Constitutions (ii. 32); see the note of Cotelier zz doc. It is altogether probable 
therefore that Justin found it in his MS. of Luke. The words (from Ps. ii. 7) being repeatedly 
applied to Christ in the N.T. (Acts xiii. 33; Heb. i. 5; v. 5), the substitution might easily 


occur through confusion of memory, or from the words having been noted in the margin of MSS. 
—E.A. 


t Theol. Review, October, 1875, xii. 482 f., note. The Liber de Rebaptismate is usually pub- 
ished with the works of Cyprian, 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 103 


author of the Clementine Homilies. The agreement between certain quotations 
of Justin and those found in the Clementine Homilies in their variations from 
the text of our Gospels is supposed to prove that Justin and Clement drew 
from a common source; namely, this “Gospel according to Peter,” from which 
they are then imagined to have derived the great body of their citations. The 
facts stated in the quotation I have given above from Lipsius, who has 
expressed himself none too strongly, are enough to show the baselessness of 
this hypothesis; but it may be well to say a few words about the alleged agree- 
ment in five quotations between Justin and the Clementines in their variations 
from the text of our Gospels. These are all that have been or can be adduced 
in argument with the least plausibility. The two most remarkable of them, 
namely, Matt. xi. 27 (par. with Luke x. 22) and John iii. 3-5, have already been 
fully discussed.* In two of the three remaining cases, an examination of the 
various readings in Tischendorf’s last critical edition of the Greek Testament 
(1869-72), and of the parallels in the Christian Fathers cited by Semisch and 
others, will show at once the utter worthlessness of the argument. ἢ 

The last example alone requires remark. This is Matt. xxv. 41, “Depart 
from me, accursed, into the eternal fire, which is prepared for the devil and his 
angels.” This is quoted by Justin as follows: “Go ye into the outer darkness, 
which the Father prepared for Satan and his angels.” (Dza/.c. 76.) The 
Clementine Homilies (xix. 2) agrees with Justin, except that it reads “the devil” 
for “Satan.” 

Let us examine the variations from the text of Matthew, and see whether 
they justify the conclusion that the quotations were taken from a different 
Gospel. 

The first is the substitution of ὑπάγετε, which I have rendered “Go ye,” for’ 
πορεύεσθε, translated in the common version “depart.” The two words, how- 
ever, differ much less, as they are used in Greek, than go and depart in English. 
The common rendering of both is “go.” We have here merely the substitu- 
tion of one synonymous word for another, which is very frequent in quotations 
from memory. Tischendorf cites for the reading ὑπάγετε here the Sinaitic MS. 
and Hippotytus (De Antichr. c. 65); so ORIGEN on Rom. viii. 38 in Cramer’s 
Catena (p.156) referred to in the Addenda to Ticgelles’s Greek Test.; to which 
may be added Dipymus (Adv. Manich. c. 13, Migne xxxix. 1104), ASTERIUS 
(Orat. ii. 7x Ps. ν., Migne xl. 412), THEODORET (Zz Ps. lxi. 13, M. Ixxx. 1336), 
and BAsIL OF SELEUCIA (Ογαΐ. xl. § 2, M. Ixxxv. 461). Chrysostom in quoting 
the passage substitutes ἀπέλθετε for πορεύεσθε eight \ 2s (Ο22. τ. 270 ed. Monte. ; 
285°; v. 256°; xi. 29°; 674f; 6954; xii. 291>; 727°); and so Epiphanius once 
(Her. |xvi. 80, p. 700), and Pseudo-Czsarius (Dial. iii. resp. 140, Migne xxxviii. 
1061). In the Latin Fathers we find déscedite, ite, abite, and recedite. 


*See, for the former, Note A; for the latter, p. 31 ff. 


+The two cases are (a) Matt. xix. 16-18 (par. Mark x. 17 ff.; Luke xviii. 18 ff.) compared 
with Justin, Dzad. c. τοι, and Aol, i. τό, and Clem. Hom. xviii. 1, 3 (comp. iii. 573 xvii. 4). 
Here Justin’s two quotations differ widely from each other, and neither agrees closely with the 
Clementines. (4) Matt. v. 34, 37, compared with Justin, A Zo/. i. 16; Clem. Hom. iii. 55; xix. 2) 
also James v. 12, where see Tischendorf’s note. Here the variation is natural, of shght impor- 
tance, and paralleled in Clement of Alexandria and Epiphanius. On (a) see Semisch, p. 371 ff.; 
Hilgenfeld, p. 220 ff.; Westcott, Cazox, p. 153 £.3 on (4) Semisch, p. 375 f.; Hilgenfeld, p. 175 ἕο; 
Westcott, p. 152 f.; Sanday, p. 122 f. 


104 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


The second variation consists in the omission of az ἐμοῦ, “ from me,” and (οἱ) 
κατηραμένοι, “ (ye) accursed.” This is of no account whatever, being a natural 
abridgment of the quotation, and very common in the citations of the passage 
by the Fathers; Chrysostom, for example, omits the “from me” fifteen times, 
the “accursed” thirteen times, and both together ten times (O/#. i. 103%; v. 
τοῖο; 4732; vii. 296%; 5714; viii. 3564; ix. 679%; 709°; x. 138>). The omission 
is still more frequent in the very numerous quotations of Augustine. 

The third and most remarkable variation is the substitution of τὸ σκότος τὸ 
ἐξώτερον, “the outer darkness,” or “the darkness without,” for τὸ πῦρ τὸ 
αἰώνιον, “the eternal fire.” The critical editors give no various reading here in 
addition to the quotations of Justin and the Clementines, except that of the 
cursive MS. No. 40 (collated by Wetstein), which has, as first written, τὸ πῦρ τὸ 
ἐξώτερον, “the outer fire,” for “the eternal fire.” It has not been observed, I 
believe, that this singular reading appears in a quotation of the passage by 
Chrysostom (Ad Theodor. lapsum, i. 9), according to the text of Morel’s edition, 
supported by at least two MSS. (See Montfaucon’s note in his edition of 
Chrysost. Off. 1. 11.) ” This, as the more difficult reading, may be the true one, 
though Savile and Montfaucon adopt instead αἰώνιον, “eternal,” on the authority 
of four MSS.* But it does not appear to have been noticed that CHRysOsTOM 
in two quotations of this passage substitutes the “outer darkness” for “the 
eternal fire.” So De Virg. c. 24, Opp. i. 285 (340)", ἀπέλθετε yap, φησίν, an’ ἐμοῦ 
εἰς TO σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον τὸ ἡτοιμασμένον κ. τ. Δ. Again, De Penit. vii. 6, Opp. ii. 
339 (309), πορεύεσθε, οἱ κατηραμένοι, εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον κ. τ. A. We find the 
same reading in BASIL THE GREAT, Hom. in Luc. xii. 18, Opp. ii. 50 (70)4; in 
‘THEODORE OF MOopsuESTIA in a Syriac translation (fragmenta Syriaca, ed. 
E. Sachau, Lips. 1869, p. 12, or p. 19 of the Syriac), “discedite a me in ¢enebras 
exteriores que parate sunt diabolo ejusque angelis”; in THEODORET (x Ps. 
lxi. 13, Migne 1xxx. 1336), who quotes the passage in connection with vv. 32-34 
as follows: “Go ye (ὑπάγετε) into the outer darkness, where is the loud crying 
and gnashing of teeth”; + in BASIL OF SELEUCIA substantially (Ovad. xl. § 2, M. 
Ixxxv. 461), ὑπάγετε εἰς TO σκότος TO EF ὦ, TO ἡτοιμασμένον κ. τ. 4.5 and in 
“SimEon CIoNITA,” 2.6. Symeon Stylites the younger (Sev. xxi. c. 2, in Mai’s 
Nova Patrum Biblioth. tom. viii. (1871), pars iii. p. 104), “ Depart, ye accursed, 
into the outer darkness; there shall be the wailing and gnashing of teeth.” ἢ 
Compare SuLpicitus SEVERUS, Fist. i. ad Sororem, c. 7: “Ite in cenebras 
exteriores, ubi erit fletus.et stridor dentium” (Migne xx. 227%). See also 
Antonius Magnus, Abbas, 2222. xx. (Migne, Patrol. Gr. ΧΙ. 1058), “Recedite 
a me, maledicti, in ignem zternum, ubi est fletus et stridor dentium.” 

The use of the expression “the outer darkness” in Matt. viii. 12, xxii. 13, 
and especially xxv. 30, in connection with “the wailing and gnashing of teeth,” 
and the combination of the latter also with “the furnace of fire” in Matt. xiii. 

2, 50, would naturally lead to such a confusion and intermixture of different 
passages in quoting from memory, or quoting freely, as we see in these 


*Since the above was written, I have noticed this reading in Ephraem Syrus, Off. Gr. ii. 
218, πορεύεσθε am’ ἐμοῖ; πάντες οἱ κατηραμένοι εἰς TO πῦρ TO ἐξώτερον ; and a little 
below, πορ. ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ οἱ κατηραμένοι εἰς TO πῦρ τὸ ἐξώτερον καὶ αἰώνιον, TO ἡτοιμασμένον 
τῷ διαβόλῳ καὶ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ .---- bid. p. 218d, But en pp. 198, 256, 278, 382, 402, 
Ephraem quotes the passage as it stands in the zea‘us receptus. See also Philippus Solitarius, 
Dioptra Rei Christiane, iv. 20 (Migne, Patrol. Gr. exxvil. 875, Ὁ c): ‘‘Abite a me procul, 
longe, maledicti, iz d¢em extertorem, qui preparatus cst diabolo et angelis ejus.’” 

+The last clause reads ὅπου ὁ βρυγμὸς καὶ ὁ ὀλολυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων, but the words 
Bpvy noc and oA0Av) μός seem to have been transposed through the mistake of a scribe. 

+ Simeon Cionita uses the expression τὸ ἐξώτερον πῦρ, “the outer fire,’’? Serzz. xxi. c. 1. 


AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 105 


examples. Semisch quotes a passage from Clement of Alexandria (Quzs dives, 
etc., C. 13, Ρ- 942), in which Jesus is represented as threatening “ fire and the 
outer darkness” to those who should not feed the hungry, etc. Cyril of Alex- 
andria associates the two thus: “ What darkness shall fall upon them... when 
he shall say, Depart from me, ye accursed, into ¢he efernal fire,” etc. (Hom. div. 
Opp. v. pars ii. b, p. 408 f.* The fire was conceived of as burning without 
light. Inthe case of Justin there was a particular reason for the confusion of 
the “fire” and the “outer darkness” from the fact that he had just before 
quoted Matt. viii. 12, as well as the fact that “the outer darkness” is mentioned 
likewise in the same chapter of Matthew (xxv. 30) from which his quotation is 
derived (Dia/. c. 76). 

Justin’s substitution of “Satan” for “the devil” is obviously unimportant. It 
occurs in the Jerusalem Syriac and A&thiopic versions, and was natural in the 
dialogue with Trypho the /ew. 

The remaining coincidence between Justin and the Clementines in their 
variation from Matthew consists in the substitution of ὃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ πατήρ, 
“which ¢he Father prepared” (comp. ver. 34), for τὸ ἡτοιμασμένον, “which is [or 
hath been] prepared.” This is of no weight, as it is merely an early various 
reading which Justin doubtless found in his text of Matthew. It still appears, 
usually as “my Father” for ‘“‘¢4e Father,” in important ancient authorities, as 
the Codex Beze (D), the valuable cursives 1. and 22., the principal MSS. of the 
Old Latin version or versions (second century), in IREN4Us four or five times 
( pater,” fZer. 11: 7. § 3; “pater meus,” iii. 23. § 3: iv. 33 καὶ 113 40. § 2; 
v. 27. § 1, allus.), ORIGEN in an old Latin version four times (Ο22. i. 87b, 
allusion; ii. 177£; 2984; iii. 885°), CyPRIAN three times, JUVENCUS, HILARY 
three times, GAUDENTIUS once, AUGUSTINE, LEO MaGnus, and the author of 
De Promissis, —for the references to these, see Sabatier; also in PHILASTRIUS 
(Her. 114), SuLpictus SEveERus (22. ii. ad Sororem, c. 7, Migne xx. 2310), 
Fastipius (De Vit. Chr. cc. το, 13, M. 1. 393, 399), EVAGRIUS presbyter (Con- 
sult. etc. iii. 9, M. xx. 1164), SALVIAN (Adv. Avar. 11. 11; x. 4; M. 1111. 201, 251), 
and other Latin Fathers —but the reader shall be spared. Clement of Alex- 
andria in an allusion to this passage (Cohort. c. 9, Ὁ. 69) has “which the Lord 
prepared”; Origen (Zaz.) reads six times “which God prepared” (Off. ii. 161°; 
346"; 416'; 4314; 466; and iv. Ὁ. p. 48%, ap. Pamphili Afo/.); and we find the 
same reading in Tertullian, Gaudentius, Jerome (Zz /sa.1. 11), and Paulinus 
Nolanus. Alcimus Avitus has Deus Pater—WUippolytus (De Axntichr. c. 65) 
adds “which my Father prepared” to the ordinary text. 

It is clear, I think, from the facts which have been presented, that there is no 
ground for the conclusion that Justin has here quoted an apocryphal Gospel. 
His variations from the common text of Matthew are easily explained, and we 
find them all in the quotations of the later Christian Fathers. 

In the exhibition of the various readings of this passage, I have ventured to 
go a little beyond what was absolutely necessary for my immediate purpose, 
partly because the critical editions of the Greek Testament represent the 
patristic authorities so incompletely, but principally because it seemed desirable 
to expose still more fully the false assumption of Supernatural Religion and 
other writers in their reasoning about the quotations of Justin. 


But to return to our main topic. We have seen that there is no direct evi- 


* Comp. Ephraem Syrus, De Judicio, Opp. Gr. ili. 402 ε ἔ: οἷον σκότος ἐπιπέσεται ἐπ' 
αὐτοὺς ὅταν λαλήσει πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἐν ὀργῇ αὐτοῦ, Kai ἐν τῷ θυμῷ αὐτοῦ πατάξει αὐτοὺς 
λέγων, πορεύεσθε K.T.A, (as 1 the received text). So iii. 97%. 


106 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


dence of any weight that Justin used either the “Gospel according to the 
Hebrews” (so far as this was distinguished from the Gospel according to 
Matthew) or the “Gospel according to Peter.” That he should have taken 
either of these as the source of his quotations, or that either of these constituted 
the “ Memoirs” read generally in public worship in the Christian churches of 
his time, is in the highest degree improbable. The “Gospel according to the 
Hebrews” was the Gospel exclusively used by the Ebionites or Jewish Chris- 
tians; and neither Justin nor the majority of Christians in his time were 
Ebionites. The “Gospel according to Peter” favored the opinions of the 
Docete; but neither Justin nor the generality of Christians were Docetists. 
Still less can be said in behalf of the hypothesis that any other apocryphal 
“Gospel” of which we know anything constituted the “Memoirs” which he 
cites, if they were one book, or was included among them, if they were several. 
We must, then, either admit that Justin’s “Memoirs” were our four Gospels, 
a supposition which, I believe, fully explains all the phenomena, or resort to 
Thoma’s hypothesis of an “X-Gospel,” ze, a Gospel of which we know 
nothing. The only conditions which this “ X-Gospel” will then have to fulfil 
will be: It must have contained an account of the life and teaching of Christ 
which Justin and the Christians of his time believed to have been “composed 
by the Apostles and their companions”; it must have been received accord- 
ingly as a sacred book, of the highest authority, read in churches on the Lord’s 
day with the writings of the Old Testament prophets; and, almost immediately 
after he wrote, it must have mysteriously disappeared and fallen into oblivion, 
leaving no trace behind.* , 


*Compare Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels, 1st ed. (1837), vol. i. pp. 225-230; 2d ed., 
1 2531. 


πε OF NAMES, TOPICS, ἌΝ ΘΕΈ WORDS. 


ABBAS, 104. 
Abbott, Dr. E. A., 26, 44, 79, 100. 


Acts, το, ταὶ not contradicted by Ep. to Gal.,1o. 


Africanus, Julius, 75. 

Agrippa Castor, £6, 87. 

Alcimus Avitus, 105. 

Alexandria, 15. 

Alford, 37, 53, 67. 

Alogi, 20, 22, 79. 

Ambrose, 50, 85. 

Ammonius, 55, 56. 

Anastasius, 38, 39, 40, 59. 

Anger, 33. 

Antioch, Sayed of, 96. 

Antonin Pius, &2. 

Antoni see Marcus. 

Antonius Magnus, 104. 

Apelles, 83. 

Aphraates, 55. 

Aphthonius, 55. 

Apocalypse, 10, 15, 20, 67, 77, 79. 

Apocalypse of Peter, 28-30. 

Apocryphal Books, see Gospels, Apocryphal. 

Apollinaris, 59. 

Apologists, 67, 71, 78. 

Apostolic Constitutions, 24, 34, 39, 40, 47, 73, 
102, 

Apostolic Memoirs, 22-25, 28. 

Archelaus, 86. 

Aristides, 64. 

Arnold, Matthew, 10, 60, 61, 88, 89. 

Artemidorus, 36. 

Asterius, 103. 

Athanasius, 34, 97; Pseud-, 4o. 

Athenagoras, 17, 60 

Augustine, 40, 50, 75, 102, 104, 105. 

Autolycus, 60. 

ἀναγεννάω, 31; 35-38, 44. 

ἄνωθεν, 32, 36, 37, 39. 

ἀπομνημονεύματα, 22, 23. 

ἀποστέλλω, 49. 


ΒΑΡΤΙΒΜ, 31, 43, 44, 50. 
Bar-Bahlul, 56. 

Bar-Hebrzus, 56. 

Barnabas, Epistle of, 17, 28, 29, 37. 
Bar-Salibi, 55-57. 

Basil the Great, 34, 104. 

Basil of Seleucia, 35, 40, 103, 104. 
Basil, Pseudo-, 34, 37. 

Basilides, 18, 53, 82, 85-89. 
Basilidians, 75, 84. 

Baumlein, 69. 

Baur, 9, 10, 13-15, 21, 82, 89. 
Bengel, 37, 69. 

Bentley, 75. 

Beyschlag, 9. 

Beza, 37. 


Bindemann, 51, 80. 

Birth, New, 31, 32, 36, 37, 425 43) 53, 62. 
Bleek, 13, 33, 84 

Bretschneider, 37. 

Brieger, 89. 

Browne, 75. 

Briickner, 69. 

Budzus, 37. 

Bunsen, 89. 


CALVIN, 37. 

Carpenter, 75. 

Caspari, 22. 

Celsus, 60. 

Censorinus, 56. 

Cerinthus, 20. 

Charteris, 56. 

Christ, 45, 50, 52, 53, 63-65, 79, 86; ubreeniate 
ence.of, 45, 66; the Son of God, 45; his 
manner of teaching, 63-65; length of his 
ministry, 59, 75. 

Christian Examiner, 12, 23. 

Christianity, 9, 10. 

Chromatius, 40. 

Chrysostom, 35-38, 40, 64, 103, 104. 

Clausen, 37. 

Clement of Alexandria, 15, 23, 24, 29, 30, 35, 
40, 44, 62, 70, 75, 78, 86, 87, 96, 100, 102, 105. 

Clement of Rome. 70; Ep. of, 17, 28, 29, 44> 

Clementine Homilies, 17, 33, 36, 38-39) 44, 575 
61, 63, 75, 95, 100, 103-105. 

Clementine Epitome, 36, 38, 39. 

Codex Bezz, ror, 102, 105. 

Codex Ottobonianus, 61. 

Codex Sinaiticus, 29, 93, 103. 

Codex Veronensis, 50. 

Commodus, 60. 

Common Prayer, Book of, 43. 

Cook, F. C., 45. 

Cramer, 103. 

Credner, 48, 51, 53, 56, 80, 94, 98. 

Cremer, 37. 

Cureton, 55. 

Cyprian, 38, 78, 102, 105; Pseudo-, 75. 

Cyril of Alexandria, 37) 39, 75) 105. 

Cyril of Jerusalem, 34. 


Dania 56. 

Davidson, 48, 64, 66, 74, 75, 83. 
Delitzsch, 44. 

Demiurgus, 85. 

De Wette, 13, 33, 37. 

Diapente, 56. 

Diatessaron, see Tatian. 

Didymus of ’ Alexandria, 41, 97, 103. 
Dindorf, 62 

Diognetus, Epistle to, go. 
Dionysius of Corinth, 29. 

Dispute between Archelaus and Manes, 86. 


τοῦ 


Docetz, Docetist, Docctists, 34, 39, 80, 81, 106. 
Dodd, 26. 

Donaldson, το. 

Drummond, 36, 44-52, 64, 65, τοι. 


EASTER, 12, 13, 91. 

Ebionites, 66, 81, ror, 102, 106. 

Egypt, 68. 

Eichhorn, 2r. 

Elias Salamensis, 55. 

Encyclopedia Britannica, 26, 44, 79, 100. 

Engelhardt, 22, 43, 73. 

Ephesus, οἱ, 92. 

Ephraem Syrus, 34, 39, 40, 55-57; 75: 104, 105. 

Epiphanius, 54, 56, 62, 86. 97, 100, ror, 103. 

Epistles, Disputed, 15, 20. 

Eucharist, 49. 

Eusebius, 23, 29, 30, 34, 35, 39, 54, 56) 59, 67, 
71, 86, go. 

Euthymius Zigabenus, 37, 40. 

Ewald, 40, 53. 

εἰρημένον, TO, 54: 

εὐαγγέλιον͵ 24, 86, 87, 100. 


FARRAR, 37. 

Fastidius, 105. 

Faustus, 102. 

Fisher, rr, 14; see Supernatural Religion. 
Florinus, 14. 

Fortnightly Review, 2r. 


GALEN, 37. 

Gaudentius, 75, 105. 

Gieseler, 13. 

Gnostics, 14, 15, 18-21, 30, 57, 62, 63, 82, 84, 
85, 89-91, 96. 

Godet. 9, 37, 87, 93. 

Gospel: Ebionite, 101, 102 ; Marcion’s, 21; of 
Marcosians, 94; of Nicodemus, 18; accord- 
ing to Hebrews, 18, 33, 56, 77, 79-81, 100, 101, 
102, 106; according to Peter, 77, 79, 80, 98; 
according to Basilides, 85-89; X,106; name, 
how applied, 18, 87. 

Gospel, Fourth: authorship of, 14, 15; date of, 
12-14, 19, 20,27; how received, 9, 12, 13, 15, 
16, 20, 21, 27, 30, 41; anti-Judaic, 10; use of, 
by Justin, 15, 30, 65; by Gnostics, 15, 20, 21, 
30, 88, 89; remarks appended to, 15, 91, 92. 

Gospels, Four: where found, 15, 20; deemed 
authoritative, 24; Sunday use of, 23, 273 
meaning not changed by Justin, 26, 30-323 
why not quoted by name, 17; inaccurately 
quoted, 18. 

Gospels, Synoptic, 14, 65, 71, 73, 74. 

Gospels, Apocryphal, 85, 88, 106; not history 
of Christ’s ministry, 18; not authorized, 20. 

Grabe, 62. 

Gregory, Dr. C. R., 13. 

Gregory Nyssen, 34. 

Grimm, Prof. Wilibald, 12, 23, 37, 47, 51- 

Grotius, 37, 69. 


HapEs, 18. 

Hadrian, 82. 
Hammond, 71. 
Harnack, 22. 
Harpocration, 37. 
Hase, 13, 89. 
Hausrath, 9. 
Hebrews, Gospel according to the, see Gospel. 
Hengstenberg, 37. 
Heracleon, 62, 84, 85. 
Heraclitus, 45. 
Hermas, 17, 28, 29. 
Hermias, 17. 
Herodes Atticus, 64, 
Hesychius, 38, 40. 
Heterography, 56. 


CRITICAL ESSAYS. 


Hilarianus, 75. 

Hilary, 102. 

Hilgenfeld, 9, 13, 14, 21, 26, 30, 34, 47, 51-53, 
56, 61, 65, 73, 74, 80, 81, 83, 87, 89, 94, 99, 
102, 103. 

Hippocrates, 37. 

Hippolytus, 18, 24, 34, 39, 79, 83, 85-89, οἵ, 
103, 105. 

Hofmann, 37. 

Holtzmann, ror. 


“Hort, 52, 53, 86, 89. 


Hutton, 69. ᾿ 


IGNATIUS, 17, 90. 

Irenzus, 14, 15, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 34, 
38, 39, 44, 46, 50, 54, 57, 58, 62, 81, 82, 94, 
95, 98, 101, 105. 


Jacost, 89. 

James, το, 22. 

Jerome, 23, 30, 85, 100, 102, 105. 

Jesus Christ, see Christ. 

John, 14, 15, 17, 20-22, 31-33, 35, 37-39) 43- 
45, 47-55, 58-65, 66, 68, 79) 733.77) 78, 82- 
Bo, Ὁ: 92, 100, 103; relation of to Jewish 

ristianity, 9, 10, 12. 

John the Baptist, 53) 65. 

Jordan, τοζ. 

Josephus, 37. 

Jowett, 12. 

Jude, 15, 25. 

Justin, 13-15, 17, 18, 22-35, 37-39, 41, 43- 
54, 57, 58, 63-68, 70-74, 76-82, 87, 93, 94, 
98-104, 106; his view of Christ, 28. 

Juvencus, 102, 105. 


Kaye, 72. 

Keim, 9-11, 13, 14, 26, 33, 48, 50, 60, 
Kidder, 69. 

Kirchhofer, 86. 

Knapp, 37- 

Krebs, 37. 

Kype, 37- 

Kabila, 52. 


LACHMANN, 53. 

Lactantius, 60, 71, 75, 102. 

Lagarde, 4o. 

Lardner, 23. 

Lazarus, 86. 

Le Clerc, 69. 

Lenfant, 69. 

Liddell and Scott, 48. 

ps tees Bp., 9, 11, 29, 32, 54-56, 59, 60, 81, 
35) 90. 

Lipsius, 10, 56, 57; 80, 81, 86, 89, 94, 100, 103. 

Logos, 20, 28, 43-46, 535 58, 60, 65, 67. 

Lord’s Day, see Sunday. 

Lord’s Supper, 12 ; see Eucharist. 

Liicke, 13, 37, 50. 

Luke, 19, 21, 22, 24, 66, 72, 77, 82-84, 86, 87, 
97, 99; Homilies on, 85. 

Luthardt, 9, 13, 37, 84, 87. 

Luther, 37. 

Liitzelberger, 14, 73. 

Lyons, 15, 59, 60. 

Λόγος, see Logos. 


MAcARIUS /EGYPTIUS, 34. 
McClellan, 37. 

Magi, 25, 99. 

Mangold, 50, 84, 100. 

Mann, N., 75. 

Mansel, 89. 

Manuscript, etc., see Codex, etc 
Marcion, 21, 82-85, 94. 
Marcionites, 21, 81, 84. 


ΝΑΜΕΒ, 


Marcosians, 94, 98. 
had Aurelius, 60. 
ark, 17, 19, 23, 66, 72, 78, 81, 83, 99. 
Mary Magdalene, 61. Ἶ ον 
Matthzi, 21. 
Matthew, 17-19, 59, 66, 70-72, 77, 78, 82, 975 
100, 103-105. 
Melito, 58, 59. 
Messiah, 32. 
Methodius, 30, τοΖ. 
Meyer, 12, 37, 71, 74. 
Millennium, 67, 77. 
Moller, 89. 
Moesinger, 55, 57- 
Montfaucon, 104. 
Morel, 104. 
Mount, Sermon on, 64, 65. 
Muratorian Canon, 16, 24, 29, 30, 60. 
μονογενής, 46. 


NEANDER, 37. 

Nicholson, ror, 102. 

Nicodemus, 32, 37, 43; Gospel of, 13. 

Nonnus, 37. 

Norton, 12, 16, 18-20, 25-28, 33, 34, 37, 52) 56, 
60, 67, 78, 80, 81, 83, 84, 86, 87, 92, 94, 98, 


Opo, 40. 

Ogdoad, 62. 

Olshausen, 37. 

Ophites, 82, 84, 89. 

Origen, 23-25, 37) 39) 54, 60, 61, 75, 80, 83, 85, 
97, 102, 103. 

Otto, 47, 48, 50, 51, 74. 


Paptas, 23; uses John’s First Epistle, 89, go. 

Paschal Controversy, 12. 

Passow, 48. 

Paul, 65; opposed by other Apostles, ro-12. 

Paulinus Nolanus, 105. 

Pentateuch, 72. 

Perate, 89. 

Peshito, 15) 37; 57. 

Peter, 10, 15, 22, 23, 28, 33, 37, 47, 76, 77; 83, 
102, 103, 106; Epistles of, 15, 37, 82 

Pfleiderer, το. 

Philastrius, ros. 

Philippians, 17. 

Philippus Solitarius, 104. 

Phillips, 55. 

Philo, 43, 44, 56. 

Philosophumena, 88. 

Philosophy, 44. 

Philostratus, 64. 

Photius, 38. 

Plato, sr. 

Plutarch, 56. 

Polemo, 64. 

Polycarp, 17, 90. 

Pratten, 55. 

Pressensé, 89. 

Priestley, 75- 

Procopius Gazzus, 38. 

Prophets, 23. 

Psalms, 45, 46, 72. 

Ptolemy, 62, 84, 85. 

πέμπω, 50- 

πηρός, 47, 48. 

φησί͵ 85. 


QUARTODECIMANS, 12, 63. 


RENAN, 9, 14, 22. 
Repository, Am. Bib., 72. 


TOPICS, AND GREEK WORDS 


10g 


Resurrection, 58, 67. 
Revelation, see Apocalypse. 
Riggenbach, 13, 47. 
Ritschl, 21. 

Robinson, E., 37. 
Robinson, T., 32. 

Ronsch, 50. 

Romans, 54. 

Routh, 59, 60. 

Rufinus, 56, 83. 


SABBATH, 52. 

Salvian, ros. 

Sanday, Dr , 21, 26, 33, 34, 51, 62, 69, 70, 94, 
103. 

Saville, 104. 

Schenkel, 10, 11, 14. 

Schmidt, 13. 

Scholten, 9, 13, 14, 61, 73, 83, 89. 

Schiirer, 12, 13. 

Schwegler, το, 13. 

Secundus, 85. 

Semisch, 23, 26, 30, 34; 47, 50, 51, 56, 76, 78, 
80, 94, 98, 103, 105. 

Semler, 21. 

Serapion, 80. 

Simeon Cionita, 104. 

Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian 
Biography, 36, 56, 57, 67, 80, 81, 86, 8g, 100. 

Socrates, 26, 45. 

Sophocles, 48. 

Soter, 28, 29. 

Sozomen, 30. 

Spaeth, 73. 

Steitz, 13, 74. 

Stephen, Henry, 37. 

Strauss, 14. 

Stuart, 72. 

Sulpicius Severus, 104, 105. 

Sunday, 23, 27, 29. 

“« Supernatural Religion,’”’ 17, 19, 21, 22, 25- 
30, 34, 41, 42, 56, 61, 63, 67, 70, 71, 74-80, 
93-98, 105. 

Symeon Stylites, the younger, 104. 


TATIAN, 17, 54-58, 63, 80, 82, 96. 

Tayler, J. J., 64. 

Taylor, Jeremy, 36, 41. 

Tertullian, 15, 23, 24, 38, 40, 50, 53, 70, 75, 
76, 83-85, 99, 105. ἢ 

Theodore, 104. 

Theodoret, 35, 40, 54, 81, 103, 104. 

Theodorus, 40. 

Theodotus, 62. 

Theological Review, 36, 44, 45, 53, 102. 

Theophilus, 17, 24, 44, 60, 70. 

Theophylact, 37. 

Tholuck, 37. 

Thoma, 46, 47, 51, 65, 67, 68, 73-75, 106. 

Tischendorf, 38, 47, 56, 87, 93, 103. 

Tregelles, 53. 

Trypho, 17, 22, 24, 47, 66, 67, 71, 72, 77; 78; 
105. 

Tiibingen, 9-11, 41, 52. 


UELTZEN, 40. 
Uhlhorn, 89. 


VALENTINIANS, 21, 62, 75, 84; used John’s 
Gospel, 62, 84. 

Valentinus, 53, 62, 82, 84, 85. 

Van Goens, 75, 7 

Victor, 56. 

vider, use of, 83, 84. 

Vienne, 59, 60. 

Vitringa, 69. 

Vitruvius, 56. 


110 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Volkmar (Volckmar), 21, 26, 32, 54, 61, 66, 81, 
83, 89, 94. 


WADDINGTON, 22. 

Wahl, 37. 

Watkins, 37. 

Weiss, 9, 69. 

Weitzel, 13. 

Weizsicker, 10, 71, 79, 89. 

Westcott, 26, 33, 34, 37) 45» 51; 53, 60, 67, 89, 
93» 94» 98. 


Wetstein, 32, 37, 69, 104. 
Whitby, 69. Ad 
Wisdom of Solomon, 37. 
Wiinsche, 32. 


XENOPHON, 22. 
ZACAGNI, 56. 


Zahn, 15. 
Zechariah, 48, 68. 


~ Zeller, 10, 13, 20, 21, 54. 


LT. 


INDEX OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES. 


[N.B.— For references of a general character, see the names of the Biblical writers, Mount, 
Sermon on the, etc,, in the preceding index. ] 


GENESIS: ii. τό, 17, . 
shh eine ie. wen ν 

Exopus: xii. 46, . 

NuMBERS: ix. 12, 


lone δι ΕΥΣ EG 


DEUTERONOMY : ΧΧΧ. 15, 19, Se Gamo 


PSALMS: 11. 1; 
Xxil. 20, 21, 
XXXIV. 20, . 

ISAIAH: i. 12, 


XXXV. 5, 
{111 22s Ξ 
P22 an δ 


ZECHARIAH: Xii. 10, 


WispDoM OF SOLOMON: 


MATTHEW: i. 25, - 
li. 16, 0 


11. τῷ, - : 
ill, 16, . Ἢ 
Taner Ae ΝΥ. 
ν. 28, 44, 46, 6 
V. 34,37) . 

Wier 35. ὁ 

vil. 20, - 


viii. τὸ, 

viii. 12, 

1X: 34, « 

ΧΙ, 27. 6 

ile 

xili. 42, 50, : 

ΧΕ ΤΟΝ schon des 

xvii. 1-8, . . 

AVAL ἢ 

xviil. 4, . 

xix. 16-18, 

xxi. 23, 

Xxii. 13, 

XXV. 30, 

Ἀχν 54: - 

αν 4 ς 

XXVi. 42, . 

xxvii. 2, 

xxvii. 11-14, . 

xxvii. 49, . 

XXVITE 5056 

xxvil. 63, 

XXvill. 19, . 
Mark: ix. 2-8, 

Seay pp ting 

SVEN ial πεν 

XV. 2-55 

ΧΥΪ. 9, - 
Luke: i. 3, 

111: 22} - 

1. ΤΟῊ " 

iv. 32, . 

vii. 42, . 

ix. 28-36, 

225) ἐν : 

xviii. 18, fee ΚΡ 


το τ δ τὲ ἦν ὦ 27 


xix. 6, . τῇ 


24, 47, 57, 93-98, 103 
a) Glebe eels 

104 

47 

ee 72 

3st 38, 35, 39, 43) 100 
. . 100 

. 58, 103 

eo, OF 

104 

104, 105 

105 

103-105 


“24, 93-98, 103 


6.0 8O No meh 108 


LUKE: xxii. 44, 


Xxill. 7, 
XXIV. 4, 23, 
XXIV. 39, 
JOHN: i. τ,. 
i. 1-3, 
I-5, 
ua, 
+4, + 
5): 


- + 58,99 


44 aie 55) 57> pi 


57) 60, 62 
45, 57 


59 

. Ἢ 3143, 103 

. . 100 

. 31, 100 

58 

49 

45 

49 

77 

47 

δ ane he 37 
+ + 49, 51, 54 
Mae, cae RO) 
52 

- 49 

59, 75 


48, 49 


47, 48 


58, 85 


112 


JouN: xiv. 9,. 
xiv. 10, 11, 
xiv. 16, 17, 
XV. 13, 
vie, “Ὁ 
Xvi. 3, 

XVii. 22, 
xviii. 12, 
XViii. 24, 
Xvili. 37, 
Xx. II, - 
2b eee By Te 
xix. 28, . 
AIK 253... ὦ 
ἘΧ πη τιν 
XIK= 27) - 
ἘΣ M025) « 
XX. 25, 27, 
ΧΙ TOs i. 
xxl. 23-25, 

ACTS: 1. 1, : 
ll. 16, 
1235 
2S Dt 
XI. 335 © 


CRITICAL ESSAYS 


RoMANS: iv. 18, . 


1 CORINTHIANS: Xv. 29, 
GALATIANS: ii. 9, 14, . 


νυ ον fet yt 
EPHESIANS: ii. 18, 
1ilse4s use 
1 THESSALONIANS: 
Wut oak 
HEBREWS: i. 4, 
Ty eS (Moca n 
ΘΈΡΟΣ 
vill. 25, . 
JAMES: V. 12, 
1 PETER: i. 3, 
1. 22» Ε 
AID ieee. δὲ 
1 JOHN: ili. 1, 
ili. 16, 
JuDE: i. 17, 


. 


ii. 


REVELATION: 1. 7, . 


DLT te 
Th 4 

M1235) Ne 
11, 045 Ὁ 


14, 


τ fer ewe "ὦ 


i 


THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN airés AND ἐρωτάω. Ἐ 


[From the Vorth American Review, January, 1872.] 


THE treatise of Archbishop Trench on the Syxonyms of 
the New Testament first appeared in 1854, and was at once 
republished in this country. After passing through five 
editions, it was followed in 1863 by a “Second Part,” like- 
wise reprinted in New York in 1864. The two parts were 
published in one volume in 1865; and now the seventh 
edition, “revised and enlarged,’ attests the well-merited 
favor with which the work has been received. The Preface 
to this new edition is much enlarged, and contains some ex- 
cellent observations on the value of the study of synonyms, 
and on the method in which it should be pursued. Other 
parts of the book bear marks of the careful revision which 
it has undergone. The amount of new matter, however, is 
mot very large. Sections: xlix.; 1, Ixviii., xcii.—xcvi., XcVili., 
xcix., and part of section c., are new, as compared with the 
first and third editions, reprinted in this country; section 
xlix. of the third edition has been cancelled. In sections 
im XIN, KAN Ixy, (== xxxiv. of Part IL), the synonyms 
οἰκέτης, ἐντροπή, ἄρτιος, aNd κακός are added. 

I do not propose to enter upon a general review of a work 
which is universally recognized as the best on the subject 
of which it treats. It is enriched with observations gath- 
ered from a wide range of reading, and is full of acute re- 
marks and fruitful suggestions; but the ingenious author 
has not elaborated all its parts with equal care, and in some 
cases his distinctions appear to be strikingly at variance 


*A Critical Notice of Synonyms of the New Testament. By Richard Chenevix Trench, 
D.D., Archbishop of Dublin, Seventh Edition, revised and enlarged. London: Macmi.lan & 
Co. 1871. 8vo. pp. xxvi, 363. [A ninth edition appeared in 1880, but essentially unchanged in 
its treatment of the two words here discussed. ] 


117. CRITICAL ESSAYS 


with the actual usage of the words which he undertakes to 
discriminate. One example of this kind, involving questions 
of considerable theological interest, particularly deserves to 
be pointed out, as the statements of the Archbishop have 
been incautiously adopted by several respectable scholars 
both in England and Germany, and are likely to be received 
without question by the generality of readers. I refer to 
his distinction between the words airéw and épwrdw, discussed 
in section xl. of his work. He says: — 


The distinction between the words is this. Αἰτέω, the Latin “ peto,” 
is more submissive and suppliant, indeed the constant word for the 
seeking of the inferior from the superior (Acts xii. 20); of the beggar 
from him that should give alms (Acts iii. 2); of the child from the 
parent (Matt. vii.9; Luke xi. 11; Lam. iv. 4); of the subject from the 
ruler (Ezra viii. 22); of man from God (1 Kin. iii. 11; Matt. vii. 7; James 
i. 5; 1 John iii. 22; cf. Plato, Euthyph. 14: εὕχεσθαι [ ἔστιν] αἰτεῖν τοὺς 
θεούς). *Epwrdw, on the other hand, is the Latin “rogo”; or sometimes 
(as John xvi. 23; cf. Gen. xliv. 10) “ interrogo,” its only meaning in clas- 
sical Greek, where it never signifies to ask, but only “to interrogate,” 
or “to inquire.” Like ‘“‘ rogare,” * it implies that he who asks stands on 
a certain footing of equality with him from whom the boon is asked, as 
king with king (Luke xiv. 32), or, if not of equality, on such a footing 
of familiarity as lends authority to the request. 

Thus it is very noteworthy, and witnesses for the singular accuracy 
in the employment of words, and in the record of that employment, 
which prevails throughout the New Testament, that our Lord never uses 
αἰτεῖν or αἰτεῖσθαι Of himself, in respect of that which he seeks on behalf 
of his disciples from God; for his is not the fetztzon of the creature to 
the Creator, but the veguest of the Son to the Father. The conscious- 
ness of his equal dignity, of his potent and prevailing intercession, 
speaks out in this, that often as he asks, or declares that he will ask, 
anything of the Father, it is always ἐρωτῶ, ἐρωτήσω, an asking, that is, 
as upon equal terms (John xiv. 16; xvi. 26; xvii. 9, 15, 20), never airéw 
or αἰτήσω.---- Synonyms, etc., pp. 136, 137. 


The view here presented by Archbishop Trench, which is, 
I believe, original, so far as his account of ἐρωτάω is con- 
cerned, has been substantially adopted by Diisterdieck in 
his commentary on 1 John v. 16 (Die drei johan. Briefe, Il. 
417), by Wordsworth (Greek Test.) on John xvi. 23 and I 


* “Thus Cicero (Plazc. x. 25): ‘ Neque enim ego sic rogadam, ut fetere viderer, quia famil- 


iaris esset meus.’ ”’ 


αἰτέω AND ἐρωτάω ¢ 115 


John v. 16, by Lightfoot on Phil. iv. 3, and by Webster and 
Wilkinson, Alford, and Braune in Lange’s Szbelwerk, ἢ 
their notes on 1 John v. 16. Braune says, without qualifica- 
tion, “‘épwriv is = rvogare, and implies equality on the part of 
the asker with him from whom the favor is sought” (p. 171, 
Amer. transl.). 

In opposition to these assertions, I shall endeavor to show 
that there is in the word ἐρωτάω no implication of equality 
on the part of the asker with him from whom the favor is 
sought, any more than there is in the English word ask, 
that there is not only no ground whatever for connecting 
such a notion with the word, but that its common use is 
totally inconsistent with this assumption. 

The materials for forming a judgment upon this matter 
fortunately lie within a small compass. The use of ἐρωτάω 
in the sense of 29 request, as Archbishop Trench has re- 
marked, does not belong to classical Greek; and in the later 
Greek, outside of the New Testament, it seems to be infre- 
quent. After a pretty extensive examination of the gen- 
eral Greek lexicons, from Stephens’s Zesaurus in its several 
editions to the great work of Prof. Sophocles on the Greek 
of the Roman and Byzantine periods, and also of the special 
lexicons, commentaries, etc., illustrating the New Testament, 
I cannot find that more than nine examples of it have 
hitherto been adduced; while in one of these the meaning 
is questionable, and in another the text is uncertain.* In 
the New Testament, however, we have thirty-six clear exam- 
ples of the use of the word in the sense referred to, besides 
one (John xvi. 23) in which its meaning has been disputed. 
The comparative frequency of this use of ἐρωτάω in the New 
Testament, though some have considered it a Latinism, is 


* They are as follows: Sept. Ps. exxi. 6 (doubtful). Jos. Avz#é. v. 1. 14 (text uncertain). 
Hermog. De Meth. Elog. c. 3, condemning this use of the word. Apollon. Dysc. Syzz. p. 289, 
1. 20, ed. Bekker. Hermas, 7s. 1. 2. Mart. Polyc. c. 12. Strato, Bpigr. liii. 8 (Anthol. Gr. 
ed. Jacobs, iii. p. 80). Babr. #ad. xcvii. 3. Charit. viii. 7.— To these may be added the twenty- 
four following, which I have not seen before referred to: Jos. “4 γέ. vil. 8. x. Barnab. 2%. 4, 21 
(ter). Hermas, Vas. ii. 23 iil. 1 (2s), 2, 10; iv. 1; Sim. v. 43 ix. 2, 11. Due Viz vel Judic. 
Petri, in Hilgenfeld’s V. 7. extra Pe iv. p. roo, 1. 20; 105,1. 1. Orac. Sibyl. 11. 310; 
viii. 355. Const. Apost. ii. 16. Babr. b.x. 8; xiii. 3. Suidas, s. vv. ἐρωτῶ Cf and ἠρώτα. 
Zonaras, 5. VV. ἐρωτῶ σε. The more oA of these passages will be cited hereafter. 


ττό CRITICAL ESSAYS 


probably to be explained by the influence of the Hebrew 
or Aramzean on the Greek-speaking Jews, the Hebrew 5x2, 
with its cognates in Chaldee and Syriac, being freely em. 
ployed in both of the principal senses of the English word 
ask. 

Let us then try the theory of Archbishop Trench by 
a few examples of the use of ἐρωτάω in the New Testament. 
(In quoting, I give the rendering of the common English 
version.) The first instance of its occurrence is in the 
account of the woman of Canaan or Syrophcenicia in Matt. 
xv. 23, where we read that the disciples of Jesus “came and 
besought him (ἠρώτων or ἠρώτουν), saying, Send her away,’’ etc. 
Were the disciples of Jesus on a footing of e7ualty with 
their Master, or of such familiarity as to lend authority 
to their request? The next example is in Mark vii. 26, 
where we are told respecting the Syrophcenician woman 
herself that she “came and fell at his feet and besought 
him (ὠρώτα) that he would cast forth the devil out of her 
daughter.” Did she address Christ on a footing of equality? 
In Luke vii. 3, the centurion is represented as sending 
elders of the Jews to Jesus, “dbeseeching him (ἐρωτῶν) that 
he would come and heal his servant.” So far from this 
petition having “authority” in it, or implying “a con- 
sciousness of equal dignity,” the centurion says (vv. 6, 7) 
that he was not worthy that Jesus should enter under his 
roof, and that he did not think himself worthy to come 
to him. In Luke viii. 37, we read that the Gadarenes 
“BDesought Jesus (ἠρώτησαν) to depart from them; for they 
were taken with great fear.’ In Luke xvi. 27, the word 
is used of the petition addressed to Abraham by the rich 
man in Hades, “I pray thee therefore, father ” (ἐρωτῶ οὖν σε), 
etc. Did he, when he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, 
consider himself as on a footing of equality with the 
patriarch ? 

But perhaps the usage of John may favor the Arch- 
bishop's: theory. Let us see. Jf the disciples ,of (Chase 
addressed their Master with authority (John iv. 31), if the 
Samaritans when they “ desought Jesus that he would tarry 


ae <i > , 
αἰτεὼ AND €)WTaw Τὴ 


with them” (iv. 40), and the nobleman at Capernaum, who 
“ besought him that he would come down and heal his son”’ 
(iv. 47), the Greeks who “came to Philip and desired him, 
Saying, Sir, we would see Jesus” (xii. 21), the Jews who 
“besought Pilate that the legs of the crucified might be 
broken, and that they might be taken away” (xix. 31), and 
Joseph of Arimathzea, who ‘“desought Pilate that he might 
take away the body of Jesus’’ (xix. 38), made these requests 
“as being ona footing of equality,” and if it is also clear that 
this’ idea is expressed in these passages by the word épordu 
itself, then, and not otherwise, is Archbishop Trench’s view 
confirmed by the usage of John. In reference to the last 
passage cited, it deserves particular notice that the first 
three evangelists, in describing this request of Joseph of 
Arimathzea, use the word αἰτέομαι (ἠτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ ᾿Τησοῦ, 
Matt. xxvi. 58, Mark xv. 43, Luke xxiii. 52), where John 
employs ἐρωτάω (ρώτησεν τὸν ἸΠειλᾶτον.... iva apy τὺ σῶμα, κ. τ. A.).* 

It can hardly be necessary to proceed much further in the 
citation of passazes from the New Testament. The first 
example in the Book of Acts (11. 3) may seem alone decisive 
of the question. There, in the account of the man lame 
from his birth, it is said that he was laid daily at the Beauti- 
ful Gate of the Temple to ask alms (αἰτεῖν ἐλεημοσύνην) of those 
who went into the Temple, and seeing Peter and John about 
to go into the Temple he asked alms (ἡ ρώτα ἐλεημοσύνην λαβεῖν), 
Did he ask this as a right, or as being “on a footing of 
cquality”? We may further observe that airéw is here zz¢er- 
changed with ἐρωτάω, though this is one of the very passages 
adduced by Archbishop Trench to illustrate the distinction 
between the words. The other passages in which the word 
ὙΠ occurs in the: Acts: are cc) 2/485. Xvi. 305 ΧΗ 


*T am indebted for this observation to ‘‘a Clergyman of the Church of England,’ the 
anonymous author of Az Examination of Canon Liddton's Bamston Lectures on the Divinity 
of our Lord and S.xviour Jesus Christ (Lond. 1871), p. 263, note, to whom belongs the credit, 
so far as I know, of first pointing out the untenableness of Archbishop Trench’s statements 
respecting the use of the word ἐρωτάω. This able writer, however, enters into no full discussion 
of the subject, and is far too liberal in conceding that ‘‘about the general accuracy of the 
distinction on which the Archbishop insists there can bz no dispute,’’ contending mere’y for an 
exception in the New Testament usage. We shall see that the examples of the word outside of 
the New Testament are equally at war with the Archbishop’s theory. 


118 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


20; xxiii. 18, 20. None of them favors the Archbishop’s 
view. ἢ 

What now are the facts adduced by Archbishop Trench in 
proof of his position that éperd implies a certain equality 
between the asker and the person asked? The reader may 
be somewhat surprised to learn that no evidence is adduced 
by him or his followers except what is contained in the ex- 
tracts from his article already given. Passing by the mere 
assertion that in certain passages of John’s Gospel épordw is 
used by Christ with this implication, we find that the only 
passage of the New Testament referred to in support of this 
theory is Luke xiv. 32. Here the argument is that, as one 
king is represented as asking another king for conditions of 
peace, ‘the word implies that he who asks stands on a cer- 
tain footing of equality with him from whom the boon is 
asked.” 

Now the mere fact that, in any single case of the use of the 
word ἐρωτάω, the parties in question are equals, obviously can- 
not prove that such equality is implied by the word itself. The 
only possible proof of the Archbishop’s thesis must consist 
in establishing the fact, by induction from a large number of 
examples, that the word is always, or at least generally, used 
of requests made by one who is regarded as standing on a 
footing of equality with him from whom the favor is sought. 
That the word is not so used has already been shown. But, 
waiving all this, the Archbishop seems to forget that the 
king in the passage referred to is represented, not as con- 
scious of equality with the hostile king, but of his zzegual- 
zty,— his inability to meet, with ten thousand men, him that 
cometh against him with twenty thousand; so that, when 
the other is a great way off, he sends an embassy “to ask for 
conditions of peace,” or, as Campbell and Norton in their 
translations have very naturally phrased it, “to sue for 
beace.. 


*For completeness, the only passages in the New Testament not already cited in which 
ἐρωτάω has or may have the meaning “" to request’? are here referred to, with the rendering of 
the word in the common English version: Ask, John xvi. 23, first part(??) Deszre, Luke vii. 36; 
xiv. 32. Pray, Luke v. 3; xiv. 18, 19; Joha xiv. 163 xvi. 263 xvii. g (47s), 15, 203 1 John v. 16. 
Beseech, Luke iv. 38; xi. 37; 1 Thess. iv. τὶ v- x23 2 Thess. iit τὶ 2 Johns. Zxtveat. 
Phil. iv. 3. 


aitéw AND épwraw 11g 


It is difficult to imagine that this passage of the New 
Testament, or any other, could have suggested the notion 
which the Archbishop has affixed to the word. He seems 
to have been really influenced by the supposed analogy of 
the Latin vogo, which does correspond, in its double meaning 
and otherwise, very closely with ἐρωτάω, and is used as its 
representative throughout the Latin Vulgate. Trench, as 
we have seen, asserts that “ogo implies that he who asks 
stands on a certain footing of equality with him from whom 
the boon is asked,” while pezo, corresponding with airéw, is 
the word appropriate to an inferior; and the following pas- 
sage of Cicero is quoted to prove it: “‘ Neque enim ego sic 
rogabam, ut petere viderer, quia familiaris esset meus” 
(Planc. x. 25). This statement in regard to the use of zogo 
I believe to be incorrect, though something like it may be 
found in Doederlein’s Latzz Synonyms, and in the valuable 
English-Latin Dictionary published by Dr. William Smith 
and DPheophilus DY Hall (See the art. Ask). The passage 
from Cicero quoted above seems to have been supposed by 
Trench and Alford (who, with Diisterdieck, has quoted it 
after him) to have the following meaning: “For I did not 
ask in such a way as to seem to deg, because he [of whom I 
asked the favor] was my intimate friend” ; though a careful 
reader who should thus construe the words might be a little 
staggered by the subjunctive esset, where erat would seem to 
be required by the laws of grammar. Now nothing like this 
is the real meaning of the passage. The object of rogabam 
and petere is not the person spoken of as “familiaris meus.” 
The sentence is imperfectly quoted; and the Archbishop 
appears to have caught it up hastily from his Latin dic- 
tionary, without taking the trouble to look into Cicero. It 
is necessary, therefore, to point out the connection in which 
it stands, and to explain the true force and bearing of the 
words. Plancius was accused of having obtained the zedile- 
ship by bribery of voters. Cicero in defending him urges, 
among other things, that he had himself secured many votes 
for him by his personal influence. Cicero’s private obliga- 
tions to Plancius were so great that the friends of Cicero 


120 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


were constrained to vote for him. ogabam in the passage 
in question is a technical term, denoting the soliciting of 
votes for a candidate for office. The full sentence reads as 
follows: “Neque enim ego sic rogabam, ut petere viderer, 
quia familiaris esset meus, quia vicinus, quia huius parente 
semper plurimum essem usus, sed ut quasi parenti et custodi 
salutis mez.’ It may be thus translated: “For I did not 
solicit the votes of the people in such a way as to seem to 
beg them for Plancius because he was my intimate friend, 
because he was my neighbor, because I had always been on 
terms of the most familiar intercourse with his father; but 
as asking them for one who was, as it were, my own parent, 
and the guardian of my safety.” The meaning of the pas- 
sage does not turn, as Trench seems to suppose, on a con- 
trast between vozare and petere. On the contrary, the words 
are here interchanged,— the vogatzzo is described as a pesztio; 
and Cicero had just before spoken of it in the following 
terms: “. . . precibus aliquid attulimus etiam nos. Ap- 
pellavi populum tributim; sadist me et supplicavi.” Τη- 
stead, therefore, of favoring Archbishop Trench’s view of 
the use of vogare, the passage is directly opposed to it. 

It would lead us too far from our proper subject to discuss 
the uses of vogo and its distinction from fefo, but it may be 
worth while to refer to a few passages which show how false 
is the supposition that it implies the asking of what one 
has a right to, or carries with it any notion of equality. 
““Molestum verbum est, onerosum, demisso voltu dicendum, 
rogo,’ says Seneca. “Properet licet, sero beneficium dedit, 
qui vogauiz dedit.” (De Benef.ii.2. Comp. alsoc. 1.) “In 
blandiendo, fatendo, satisfaciendo, vogazdo,” says Quintilian, 
the voice should be “lenis et summissa.” (vst. Or. xi. 3, 63.) 
Comp. Ovid, AZet. vii. 90, ‘auxilium submissa voce rogavit,” 
and Pow. iv. 3,41. Finally, vogare is often used of prayer 
to the gods, who are not usually supposed to be addressed 
on terms of equality; e.¢., “Deos supplex vogavi,” Ovid, Ep. 
il. 17; “Suppliciter rogate Deos,” Id. Pont. i. 10. 44, comp. 
li. 3, 100, iv. 8, 3; “ Otium divos vogat,” Hor. Carm. ii. 16, I. 

We have seen that Archbishop Trench finds in the use 


αἰτέω AND ἐρωτάω 121 


of ἐρωτάω and the non-use of αἰτέω, on the part of our Lord in 
his prayers to the Father, “the consciousness of his equal 
dignity.” We shall consider, hereafter, the real distinction 
between the words, and shall not find, I think, that the 
phenomenon in question requires us to assume that, in the 
passages to which he refers, an idea is implied in the word 
ἐρωτάω Which cannot be shown to belong to it anywhere else. 
And the Archbishop does not seem to have observed that 
very different and rather startling conclusions might be 
drawn, with equal plausibility, from the premises which he 
assumes in regard to this word. We might say, for exam- 
ple, that it is very noteworthy, and witnesses for the 
singular accuracy in the employment of words which pre- 
vails throughout the New Testament, that αἰτεῖν or aireicba: 
the constant word for the seeking of the inferior from the 
superior, is never used in respect of that which the Apostles 
ask of Christ, but is appropriated to their petitions to God 
(Math xvi. τῷ: xxt022; John xv. 16; (xvi. 23, etc.), When 
they are represented as requesting anything of Christ, the 
word ἐρωτᾶν is employed (Matt. xv. 23; Luke iv. 38; John 
iv. 31), implying an asking as upon equal terms. The only 
exception is in Mark x. 35; but in that case, as we learn 
from the parallel passage (Matt. xx. 20), the petition was not 
really presented by the Apostles James and John directly, 
but through their mother, who fell down before Jesus and 
begged the favor, so that the apparent exception really 
confirms the rule. This may suffice for an argumentum ad 
hominem. 

The concluding paragraph of Archbishop Trench’s article 
reads thus in the seventh edition (p. 138):— 


It will follow that the ἐρωτᾶν, being thus proper for Christ, inasmuch 
as it has authority in it, is not proper for us; and in no single instance 
is it used in the N. T. to express the prayer of man to God, of the 
creature to the Creator. The only passage seeming to contradict this 
assertion is 1 John v.16. The verse is difficult, but, whichever of the 
various ways of overcoming its difficulty may find favor, it will be 
found to constitute no true exception to the rule, and perhaps, in the 
substitution of ἐρωτήσῃ for the αἰτήσει of the earlier clause of the verse, 
will rather confirm it. 


122 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


The passage in question is as follows in the common 
version :— 

If any man see his brother sina sin which is not unto death, he shall 
ask (αἰτήσει), and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. 
There is a sin unto death; I do not say that he shall pray for it (οὐ περὶ 
ἐκείνης λέγω ἵνα ἐρωτήσῃ). 


᾽» 


It should be noted here that the word translated “it” in 
the last clause of the verse is emphatic in the original, and 
should have been rendered “that” or “this.” 

The Archbishop unfortunately does not favor us with his 
view of the passage, and indeed seems to be doubtful about 
its meaning; he is only sure that, at all events, the true 
explanation will present no exception to his rule about the 
use of épwrao. In the earlier editions of the Syxonyms 
reprinted in this country, he did propose an explanation, 
which, though adopted by Alford and others, seems now to 
have been discreetly abandoned by its original propounder. 
According to his former view, it was the design of the 
Apostle by the use of the word ἐρωτήσῃ in the last clause to 
declare that ‘the Christian intercessor for his brethren 
shall not assume the authority which would be implied in 
making request for a sinner who had sinned the sin unto 
death” (Synonyms, p. 198, Amer. ed.). The Archbishop has 
probably since perceived that the result of assigning this 
meaning to ἐρωτάω here, and laying stress on the supposed 
difference between it and airé, must be to suggest that, 
though a person is not permitted ἐρωτᾶν, to ask with author- 
ity for the pardon of a sin unto death, he is permitted αἰτεῖν, ἢ 
to ask humbly for it. But this is evidently contrary to the 
meaning of the Apostle, as it would render nugatory the 
restriction in the first clause of the verse. St. John, more- 
over, would hardly deem it necessary to tell his readers that 
he did not mean to have them address their prayers to God 
“as being on a footing of equality” with him. 

Bishop Wordsworth gives a different explanation. He 
adopts the view of Archbishop Trench, that ἐρωτάω expresses 
“the request of an equal, who has a right to ask and 
obtain,” but does not introduce that meaning here. His 
translation of the passage is certainly remarkable: “I am 


, 
aitéw AND €pwraw 123 


not speaking concerning that, in order that he (the Chris- 
tian brother) should ask”; and the explanation matches it. 
He understands St. John “to intimate that no 7xterroga- 
tory questions are to be addressed to God concerning the 
person who is sinning a sin unto death.” * The view of 
Webster and Wilkinson is similar: “The Apostle checks 
the approach to the throne of grace as to an oracle to 
inquire (ἐρωτᾶν) with the intention of αἰτεῖν Whether this 
is the view which Archbishop Trench is now inclined to 
entertain, I do not know; it does not appear to have 
occurred to any commentator, ancient or modern, except 
those whom I have just quoted. 

Dismissing, then, these unnatural explanations, which 
seem to have been suggested by the exigencies of a theory, 
let us turn once more to the passage. Is it not evident that 
the Apostle is stating in a positive form, in the last clause 
of the verse, the restriction implied in the first? ‘“‘ There is 
a sin unto death; [when I say that he shall ask, αἰτήσει I 
do not Εν that he shall pray (or, “I do not bid him pray’”’) 
for that”? (οὐ περὶ ἐκείνης λέγω iva ἐρωτήσῃ). ἜΣ He has been speaking 
of petitions, not of an “oracle,” or of “interrogatory ques- 
tions addressed to God.” 


We may now consider the use of the word ἐρωτάω outside 
of the New Testament. The earliest example adduced is 
from the Septuagint, Ps. cxxi. (Heb. cxxil.) 6, ἐρωτήσατε δὴ τὰ εἰς 
εἰρήνην τὴν Ἱερουσαλήμ, Which has been translated, “ Pray for the 
peace of Jerusalem.” This is probably the true rendering 
of the original Hebrew (see Maurer and Hupfeld zz /o-.), 
though some understand it differently. But, if we follow 
the analogy of precisely the same phraseology in other pas- 
sages of the Septuagint (see I Sam. x. 4, ἐρωτήσουσί σε τὰ εἰς 
Blom also, XXX..210; 2 Sam. vill, 16: 4 Chr. xvili, 10), we 
shall make the verbal meaning of the Greek translation to 
be, ““Ask Jerusalem concerning her peace,”—that is, as the 


*If λέγω here means ‘‘to say,’ and not “‘ to speak ᾽᾽ (for which λαλέω would be the proper 
word), ἵνα cannot mean “ἴῃ order that,’’ but introduces an object-clause, as in Acts xix. 4, John 
xiii. 29, comp. Rev. vi. 11, ix. 4, Matt. iv. 3, etc, and Sophocles, Gr, Lex. art. λέγω. The 
word as used here and in the other examples cited is nearly equivalent to κελεύω. The preposi- 
tion περὶ is to be connected with ¢ EPOT jon, as in Luke iv. 38, John xvii. 9, etc. Comp. δέομαι 
περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν», Ecclus. xxi. 1, xxv.il. 4, XXXIX. 5. 


124 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


phrase is used elsewhere, “ Sa/uze Jerusalem,” wish her all 
prosperity. (Comp. the rendering of Symmachus, ἀσπάσασθε.) 
If ἐρωτήσατε is here taken in the sense of “pray,” we must 
suppose an ellipsis of τὸν θεόν- ἃ5. the being addressed, which 
would give us the extraordinary construction of three accusa- 
tives after the verb. We should expect, instead of the third 
accusative, τῇ Ἱερουσαλήμ, as the verse is inaccurately quoted 
by Bishop Ellicott on 1 Thess. iv. 1, and by Webster in 
his Syxtax and Synonyms of the Greek Testament. It 15 
also to be observed that we thus assign to ἐρωτάω a mean- 
ing which it has nowhere else in the Septuagint. Such 
being the state of the case, although the passage is adduced 
by Bretschneider, Robinson, Bloomfield, Grimm, Sophocles, 
and other lexicographers, as an example of ἐρωτάω in the 
sense of “to pray,’ I shall not urge it against Archbishop 
Trench’s theory. 

The next passage in chronological order is in Josephus, 
Ant. v. 1. 14, where, after giving the prayer of Joshua, he 
says, ταῦτα μὲν ᾿Ιησοὺῦς ἐπὶ στόμα πεσὼν ἠρώτα τὸν θεόν. Here, if the 
text is correct, ἐρωτάω is clearly used of the prayer of man 
to God. This is the reading in the editions of Hudson 
and Havercamp, and in the earlier editions of Josephus. 
Dindorf and Bekker, however, have substituted for ἠρώτα τὸν 
θεόν, τὸν θεὺν ixéreve. Notwithstanding the authority of these 
eminent critical editors, it seems to me that not only does 
the external evidence, as given in Bernard’s note in Hav- 
ercamp’s edition, decidedly favor the reading ἠρώτα, but the 
internal still more. This use of ἐρωτάω being raré, and con- 
demned by some of the rhetoricians, it was very natural 
that a gloss like ἱκέτευε should be substituted for it in some 
MSS. ; just as Zonaras (Azz. i. 20), in copying this account 
of Josephus, has substituted ἐδέετο τοῦ θεοῦ. Comp. Suidas: 
Ἠρώτα * παρεκάλει, ἔθυεν, ηὔχετο, ixérevev,* and see also his art. ἐρωτῶ σε, 
cited on the next page. 


* Here, however, as ἔθυε.» is inappropriate as an explanation, I would suggest that Suidas 
needs emendation, and that we should read, ᾿Ηρώτα - παρεκάλει. Ἔθυεν, ηὗχετο, ἱκέτευεν, 
ἠρώτα, taking all after παρεκάλει as a quotation from Babrius, Fad. x. 8, to be cited below. 
"Hpara is actually added after ἱκέτευεν, making the line complete, in three MSS. and the first 
edition of Suidas. See Bernhardy’s note. 


ΕῚ ἧς 
αἰτέω AND ἐρωταω 125 


But whatever may be thought of this passage of Josephus, 
a plenty of unquestionable examples may be cited of ἐρωτάω 
used in reference to prayer addressed to God or to heathen 
deities. See Hermas, Vzs. 1. 2, ἐρωτήσω τὸν κύριον, wa ἰλατεύσῃ 
[Sin. ἱλατεύσηται] μοι, also 2béd. ii. 2, 111. 1 (O25), iv. τ; Sem. v. 
A, ix. 2, in all of which passages κύριον is the object; Orac. 
Sibyl. 11. 310, Πολλὰ δ᾽ ἐρωτήσουσι ματὴν θεὸν ὑψιμέδοντα, ane Vall 2.55» 
Πολλὰ δ᾽ ἐρωτήσουσι θεόν ye τὸν αἰὲν ἐόντα (so Alexandre; Friedlieb 
makes the line identical with ii. 310); and Babr. fad. x. 8, 
τὴν ’Agpodityv... "Ἔθυεν, ηὔ χεθ᾽, ἱκέτευεν, ἠρώτα. 

Other passages may be adduced in opposition to Arch- 
bishop Trench’s notion that ἐρωτάω implies “an asking as 
upon equal terms,” or with ‘‘authority.” In the Epistle 
ascribed to Barnabas, where the word ἐρωτάω occurs four 
times (cc. 4, 21 thrice) in exhortation, in the sense of ‘‘to 
entreat,” “beseech,” we read (c. 21), ἐρωτῶ ὑμᾶς, χάριν αἰτούμενος, 
“JT entreat you, asking it as a favor.’ In Hermas, it is used 
of the humble entreaty addressed by the writer to the 
woman, representing the Church, who appeared to him in 
a vision (Vis. aie 2, πεσὼν δὲ αὐτῆς πρὸς τοὺς πόδας ἠρώτησα αὐτὴν... ἵνα, 
x. t. 2. also 227. iii. 10), and to the Shepherd or angel of re- 
pentance (Szm. ix. 11). In the Epistle of the Church at 
Smyrna, giving an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp (c. 
12), the angry multitude are said to have desought (ἠρώτων) 
the asiarch to let loose a lion on Polycarp. And in the 
Apostolical Constitutions (lib. ii. c. 16) the word is used of 
the entreaty to be addressed to the bishop in behalf of a 
penitent brother. 

The notices of the word by the old grammarians and lex- 
icographers may now be quoted. Hermogenes (De Meth. 
Elog. c. 3) condemns the use of ἐρωτάω and παρακαλέω in the 
sense of δέομαι, “to beg,” “to entreat,” restricting the former 
to the meaning Sto inquire ᾿ς ἐὰν εἴπῃ τις ἐρωτῶ καὶ παρακαλῶ ἀντὶ 
τοῦ δέομαι, ἀκύρως εἴρηκε. τὸ μὲν γὰρ παρακαλεῖν ἢ καλεῖν ἔστιν ἢ προτρέπεσθαι, 
τὸ δὲ ἐρωτᾶν πυνθάνεσθαι. (Walz, Rhet. Gr. ii. 404.) Ἐ 

Apollonius Dyscolus enumerates among the words “ which 
denote supplication,” ὅσα ἱκετείαν onuaiver,— γουνοῦμαι, ἐρωτῶ oe ἐν ἴσῳ 
τῷ παρακαλῶ σε, λιτανεῦω, ἱκνοῦμαι. (Syn. Ρ. 280, ed. Bekker.) 

Suidas under the word ἠρώτα has already been quoted. He 


126 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


also has: ’Epwré ce: παρακαλῶ σε, ἱκετεύω σε, δέομαι. Kai αὖθις - ᾿Ελθεῖν 
πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸ δεῖπνον ἠρώτα, ἀντὶ τοῦ παρεκάλει. ene. the line is 
quoted from Babrius, Fad. xlii. 3. Compare also Babrius, 
Fab, xcvii. 3, τὸν ταῦρον ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ “τὸ δεῖπνον ἠρώτα, and the same use 
of the word in Luke vii. 36, xi. 37. 

Zonaras has ’Epwré ce: παρακαλῶ σε, ἱκετεύω oe, and quotes the 
same passage as Suidas. The word does not appear to have 
been noticed by Hesychius, Photius, and the other old lex- 
icographers and grammarians. 

The few remaining examples of ἐρωτάω outside of the New 
Testament are not of sufficient interest to be quoted. 


The preceding examination of the use of ἐρωτάω may satisfy 
us that Archbishop Trench’s theory not only has no founda- 
tion to rest upon, but that it is directly contradicted by a 
large majority of the passages in which the word occurs, 
both in the New Testament and the later Greek writers. 
We will now consider the use of αἰτέω. 

In the extract already given from Archbishop Trench’s 
article, he represents airéo, compared with ἐρωτάω, as ‘more 
submissive and suppliant, indeed the constant word for the 
seeking of the inferior from the superior”; and this state- 
ment may seem to be supported by the prevailing usage of 
the word. His view accords also with that of Bengel (notes 
on John xi. 22 and 1 John v. 16), and of Webster in his 
Syntax and Synonyms of the Greek Testament, p. 190. 

The following passages, however, must at least be regarded 
as exceptions, and may suggest a doubt as to the correct- 
ness of the distinction asserted: Luke i. 63, “he asked for 
a writing-table and wrote” (αἰτήσας... ἔγραψεν) ; xii. 48, “to 
whom men have committed much, of him they το ask 
(require) the more” (airjcovew); Acts xvi. 29, ‘Then he 
called for a light” (αἰτήσας) 1 Cor. i. 22, “For the Jews 7e- 
quire signs” (airovow) ; and 1 Pet. iii. 15, “Be always ready 
to give an answer to every man that asketh you (αἰτοῦντι) a 
reason for the hope that is in you.” In the Septuagint we 
read, “What doth the Lord thy God reguire (αἰτεῖται) of 
theer  y (Wet x: 12.)' ‘See-also, 2 Macc) vi. To.) ones 


αἰτέω AND ἐρωτάω 127 


examples from Philo and Josephus are. given by Loesner, 
Obs. p. 118, and Krebs, Ods. p. 117, though ἀπαιτέω, is gen- 
erally used to express the idea of demanding. 

If we are guided by the actual usage of the words, we 
shall be led to the conclusion that the distinction between 
αἰτέω and ἐρωτάω in Hellenistic Greek does not depend upon 
the relative dignity of the asker and the person asked. In 
this respect, they seem to be neutral, as much so as our 
English work asf. 

The main distinction appears to be this: Αἰτέω is, in gen- 
eral, to ask for something which one desires to recezve, 
something to be gzven, rarely for something to be done: 
it is therefore used when the odject sought, rather than the 
person of whom it is sought, is prominent in the mind of 
the writer ; hence also it is very rarely employed in exhorta- 
tion. ᾿Ἐρωτάω, on the other hand, is to request or beseech a 
person to do something, rarely to give something; it refers 
more directly to the persoz of whom the favor is sought, and 
is therefore naturally used in exhortation and entreaty. 

Doederlein notes a similar distinction between /fetere and 
rogare. “As compared with feferc,” he says, “vogare refers 
immediately to the fersou who is applied to for a service: 
petere, on the other hand, to the object sought... Cic. zz 
Verr.: Iste petit a rege et eum pluribus verbis vogat, uti ad 
ΒΕ πιὰ eter) (Luz, Sy. Vv. 220, 230:) 

In confirmation of this view, I will give the results of an 
examination of the use of αἰτέω ἴῃ the New Testament, the 
Septuagint, the so-called Apostolical Fathers, and some 
other early Christian writings. For the canonical books of 
the Septuagint, I have used the Concordance of Trommius, 
and for the Apocrypha Wahl’s C/avzs ; for Clement of Rome, 
Polycarp, and the Ignatian writings, Jacobson’s Index to his 
edition of the Patres Apostolic: ; for Barnabas and Hermas, 
the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Epistle 
to Diognetus, my own notes. The classical use of the word 
is not important for our present purpose. 

To illustrate the distinction referred to, little will be 
needed besides the statistics of the construction of airéw as 


128 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


contrasted with ἐρωτάω. Both words must, of course, have 
both a person and a thing as their objects, expressed or im- 
plied. But the different construction of the words shows 
that their relation to these objects was usually conceived of 
differently. In the case of αἰτέω, which occurs in the New 
Testament seventy-one times, we have : — 

1. The thing only expressed, thirty-six times. Twice 
(Luke xxii. 23; Acts ili. 14) the object is an accusative with 
the infinitive ; twice (Acts vii. 46; Eph. 111. 13) an infinitive 
only ; once (Col. i. 9) ἵνα with the subjunctive. 

2. Thing, and person with the preposition παρά or ἀπό, three 
times. 

3. Person and thing, two accusatives, ten times; thing 
expressed by accusative with infinitive, once (Acts xiii. 28). 

4. The person only expressed, in the accusative case, six 
times (Matt..v. 42, vi. 8, vil. 11; Luke vi. 30, xi. 13; John 
iv. 10) 

5. Neither person nor thing expressed, but the thing more 
prominent in the context, fifteen times. 

One who shall examine the New Testament examples by 
the aid of his Concordance will find that, in a great majority 
of the seventy-one passages, the request is for something to 
be given, not done; and that the thing asked for, rather than 
the person, is chiefly prominent in the mind of the writer. 
Even in the six examples cited under number four, where 
the personal object alone is expressed, the exception is 
rather apparent than real; δι. Matt. v. 42, “Give to him 
that asketh thee,” where the thing to be given is not speci- 
fied, on account of the comprehensiveness of the injunction. 

In the Septuagint αἰτέω occurs about eighty-two times, in- 
cluding thirteen in the Apocrypha. We have :— 

1. The thing asked for only expressed, thirty-six times. 
(In 1 Sam. xii. 13, I adopt the reading of the Alexandrine 
MS.) 

2. Thing in the accusative (with one exception), and per- 
son in the genitive with παρά, twenty-six times. 

3. Person and thing both expressed in the accusative, ten 
times. Passive participle, perhaps with accusative of thing, 
once (2 Macc. vii. 10). 


αἰτέω AND épwrew 129 


4. Person only, in the genitive with παρά, four times. 
There is zo example of the construction with the accusative 
of a person only. (In Esth. vii. 7, I adopt the reading of 
the Roman edition and the Alexandrine MS.) 

5. Neither person nor thing expressed, five times. 

The result is that in nearly all, perhaps in all, the exam- 
ples found in the Septuagint we may reasonably regard the 
object asked for as made more prominent than the person. 
This object is also almost always something to be given, 
rather than something to be dove, and, accordingly, is only 
once expressed by ὅπως with the subjunctive, never by ἵνα, 
and never by an infinitive of which the person asked is the 
subject. We shall see a striking contrast in the construction 
of ἐρωτάω. 

In the Apostolical Fathers and other early Christian writ- 
ings before mentioned, I have noted forty-four examples of 
αἰτέω OF airéouw; namely, Clem. Rom. Ef. i. 50, 53, 55. Barn. 
2m Gm ¢, tO probably spurious). Polyc. Pd 7. lenar 
ial 12... ion 0, 3,8 (2s); Polyc. 1,.2. Mart. Ignat. 6: 
Hermas, V7s. 111. 3, 10 (four times) ; J/azd. ix. (eleven times), 
ΕΠ ΟΣ ἵν 5. 1 (five times), vi. 2. Ep: ad) Diogn) τ᾿ 
mest. xi. ΠΗ 727: Ὁ... fos. 15, 16 (three. times; I adopt the 
reading of the Oxford MS.). They are constructed as fol- 
lows : — 

1. Thing only expressed, twenty times. 

2. Thing, and person with παρά or ἀπό, ten times. 

3. Person and thing, two accusatives, twice. Person in 
accusative, and object represented by λέγοντες with impera- 
Mvewonce (best, xt, Patr.,/os. 15). 

4. Person only in genitive with παρά, seven times. 

5. Person only, in the accusative, twice. 

6. Neither person nor thing expressed, twice. 

Without going into a more minute analysis, we perceive 
that the result is essentially the same as in our examination 
of the usage of the New Testament and the Septuagint. 


130 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Contrast now the construction of ἐρωτάω, of which we have 
in all sixty-six or sixty-seven examples. We find :— 

1. The person only directly expressed (in the accusative), 
eighteen times. The object sought is understood nine times 
(Luke iv. 38; John xiv. 16, xvi. 26; Barn. 21 ; Const. Apost. 
ii. 16; Apollon. Dysc. Syzz¢. p. 289; Babr. x. 8; Suidas, s. v. 
ἐρωτῶ σε; Zonaras, do.) ; indirectly signified by an imperative, 
six times (Luke xiv. 18, 19; Phil. iv. 35) Bara, 21, Gs Σ Duce 
Viz, p. 100, 1. 20, ed. Hilgenf.); by an imperative preceded 
by λέγοντες, twice (Matt. xv. 23; John iv. 31); by λέγοντες intro- 
ducing a sentence with the verb in the indicative, once 
(John xii. 21). The passive participle is used, without 
object expressed, twice (Strato, Apzgr. lili. 8; Charit. viii. 7). 

2. Accusative of person; thing variously expressed, 
namely: (a) By an accusative, five or six times (John xvi. 
232 5705. Ant ν. 1, 14% Bare ἢ: Term: Ver iP Ὁ. Ora 
Sibyl. ii. 310, viii. 355). (b) By an infinitive, eight times 
(Luke vi 9, vill. 375 John iv: 20, Acts x. 48; 1 Thess, 125 
Jos; Ant; vii 8. τ; Dus Vise; ΒΒ. τος 1. 25 Βα που ἢ) 
By iva with subjunctive, fifteen times (Mark vii. 26; Luke 
Wil. 26, xvi. 27; John xix, 31,36 eer Mhess.\iv. 572) Jonna 
Mari. Pelye. 12: Herm: V2e ez aime το a, ne Smee 
4, ix. 2, 11). (d) By ὅπως with the subjunctive, three times 
(Luke vii. 3, xi. 37; Acts xxiii. 20). (e) By εἰ τὸ with in- 
finitive, once (2 Thess. ii. 1). In all, thirty-two or thirty- 
thee times. 

3. Thing only expressed: (a) By an accusative, once 
(Luke xiv. 32). (b) By an infinitive, four times (Acts iii. 3, 
XVl. 39, xxiii. 18; Babr. xlii. 3). (c) By wa with subjunc- 
tive, four times (John iv. 47 (Tisch:), xvii. 15, 20; Herm 
Vis. iii. 1). In all these cases, the person is prominent in 
tiecontext, (Nine times.) 

4. Neither person nor thing expressed, five times (John 
awa, - 1 John v.16 ‘Herm, Γ2 5. τ} 2,095). 

The difference of construction illustrates palpably the 
reality of the distinction pointed out. Of the sixty-six or 
sixty-seven examples of the use of épordo, there are only 
six or seven in which the object asked for is expressed by 


αἴτέω AND ἐρωτάω 131 


an accusative. Ina great majority of cases, it is expressed 
by an infinitive, or by ἵνα or Ά ὕπως with the subjunctive, or 
indirectly by an imperative, the thing asked for being usu- 
ally something which the person asked is requested to da. 
In the one hundred and ninety-seven examples, on the other 
hand, which have been cited of the use of airéw or airéoua, 
there is hardly (but see Deut. x. 12) a single instance in 
which the thing asked for is something which the person is 
directly requested to do; generally, it is something to be 
given, and the object asked for is expressed by an accusa- 
tive. Thus we see why, in Matt. xxvii. 58, and the parallel 
passages in Mark and Luke, we have ἠτήσατο τὸ σῶμα, κ. τ. 1.; 
but in John ἠρώτησεν τὸν Πειλᾶτον.... ἵνα apy τὸ σῶμα, κ. τ. A. In John 
xiv. 16 and xvi. 26, ἐρωτάω may be preferred to αἱτέω, because 
the personal object not only is prominent, but is alone ex- 
pressed. In the prayer, John xvii. 9, 15, 20, the personal 
object, indeed, is not expressed, but is prominent in the 
mind, from the nature of the case. It may also be true that 
ἐρωτάω, though not implying “ equality” or “authority,” ac- 
cords better than αἰτέω with the intimate personal relation 
between Christ and the Father, and also with that between 
Christ and his disciples. In Acts iii. 2, 3, the transition 
from αἰτεῖν to ἐρωτᾶν May perhaps be explained by the promi- 
nence given in the third verse to Peter and John, the fer- 
sons from whom the alms was asked, though the personal 
object is not expressed after the verb. It is further evi- 
dent that, with ἐρωτάω, the idea of earnestness is often asso- 
eiaecd ; see, πο, Mark vii. 26; Luke vill, 37, xvi.'27. Our 
translators have felt this, in rendering the word so often 
‘“‘heseech”’ or “entreat.” This is much more rarely the case 
with αἰτέω OF αἰτέομαι, Which is accordingly seldom used in exhor- 
tations. The exception in Ignat. Rom. 8 is so unusual that 
Vossius insists that the true reading there must be παρακαλῶ. 
The use of αἰτοῦμαι in Eph. ill. 13, Διὸ αἰτοῦμαι μὴ ἐνκακεῖν Ev ταῖς 
θλίψεσίν μου ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, accordingly favors the rendering, “ Where- 
fore I pray that I may not be disheartened in my afflictions 
in your behalf,” rather than, “1 entreat you not to be dis- 


132 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


heartened,” etc., though many of the best scholars prefer 
the latter.* 

If the preceding statements are correct, we cannot accept 
the distinction between ἐρωτάω and airéo, which Huther pro- 
poses in the last edition of his Commentary on the First 
Epistle of John (note on 1 John v. 16). He says that ἐρωτᾶν, 
properly ‘to inquire” (/fvagev), is a milder asking than αἰτεῖν, 
which properly means “ to demand” ( fordern), and expresses 
greater urgency. Bengel, in his note on the same passage, 
regards ἐρωτᾶν aS denoting the “ gezus,” of which αἱτεῖν is a 
“species humtlior” ; in other words, ἐρωτᾶν is “to ask,” in 
general, while αἰτεῖν is “to ask humbly,” “to beg.” (Com- 
pare his note on John xi. 22.) But we have seen that this 
view is not sufficiently supported by usage. 

In the comparison which has been made between ἐρωτάω 
and airéw, it must be borne in mind that the former word, in 
the sense of “to request” or “entreat,” appears never to 
have had a wide currency. It seems to have been familiar 
in this sense to Luke, John, Paul, Hermas, the author of the 
Epistle ascribed to Barnabas, and Babrius. It does not 
occur in the Septuagint, is rare in Josephus, and seems to 
be very rare in the later Greek generally. We find com- 
monly in its place ἀξιόω, δέομαι, OF παρακαλέω. Though this use 
of παρακαλέω is condemned by Hermogenes, it is remarkably 
frequent in Josephus. It occurs a few times in the Septua- 
gint ; but there we have more commonly δέομαι Or ago. One 
might suppose from its etymology and classical use that 
the latter word would have the sense which Archbishop 
Trench ascribes to ἐρωτάω, of asking for something to which 
one has acertain right ; but it is not so. It is used in the 
simple sense of to express a desire for something ; or, with 
reference ‘to a person, “‘to ask," “request,” ‘pray: mee 
often occurs with τὸν θεόν OF κύριον as its object; and is even 
used absolutely, as we should use “to pray” in English. 


* On the side of the former construction (for which comp. Ignat. TvaZ. 12, αἰτούμενος θεοῦ 
ἐπιτυχεῖν) are the Syriac version, Theodoret, Bengel, Riickert, Harless, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
Olshausen, Wahl, Bretschneider, Conybeare, Braune, Ewald; the latter is supported by 
Theophylact, Grotius, LeClerc, Beausobre, Wolf, Matthies, De Wette, Meyer, Bleek, Schenkel, 
Alford, Ellicott, Eadie, Noyes, and the majority of expositors. 


αἰτέω AND ἐρωτάω 133 


Δέομαι 15. also frequently thus used; and, what will seem very 
strange to a merely classical scholar, is often followed in the 
Septuagint, and once in the New Testament, by πρός with 
the accusative, like εὔχομαι and προσεύχομαι. 


We will conclude this long discussion with the examina- 
tion of a passage of considerable interest, in which the 
meaning Of ἐρωτόω has been disputed. I refer to John xvi. 23, 
ewhich reads as follows in Tischendorf’s last edition: Καὶ ἐν 
ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐμὲ οὐκ ἐρωτήσετε οὐδέν. ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἄν τι αἰτήσητε τὸν 
πατέρα, δώσει ὑμῖν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου. “And, in that day ye will ask 
nothing of me. Truly, truly, do I say to you, if ye ask any- 
thing of the Father, he will give it to you in my name.” 

The question is whether ἐρωτάω is here used in the sense 
Ole £0 Inguire, “asim vv. LO, So, or “to request, as) in 
v. 26. Archbishop Trench remarks : — 


Every one competent to judge is agreed that “ye shall ask” of the 
first half of the verse has nothing to do with “ye shall ask” of the 
second ; that, in the first, Christ is referring back to the ἤθελον αὐτὸν 
ἐρωτᾶν Of ver. Ig, to the questions which the disciples would fain have 
asked of him, if only they dared to set these before him. “In that 
day,” he would say, “in the day of my seeing you again, I will by the 
Spirit so teach you all things, that ye shall be no longer perplexed, no 
longer wishing to ask me questions (cf. John xxi. 12), if only you might 
venture to do so.” — Syz., p. 136. 


The explanation given by Archbishop Trench is sup- 
ported by Lampe, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel, De Wette, 
Meyer, Ewald, Godet, Bloomfield, Alford, and a large ma- 
jority of modern expositors ; also, by Wakefield and Norton 
in their translations of the New Testament. But‘it seems 
to involve serious difficulties, which are not satisfactorily 
explained by these eminent commentators. Our Saviour 
is referring to the time when he was to be personally with- 
drawn from the disciples, and another Helper (παράκλητος), 
the Holy Spirit, should, as it were, take his place. But why 
should he say that then they would ask him no questions ? 
Was it worth while to tell them that they would not do 
what from the nature of the case was impossible? It is 
to be observed further that me is the emphatic word in the 


134 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


sentence,— emphatic both by form (ἐμὲ) and position. We 
have then the meaning, “In that day you will ask no ques- 
tions of me”; but what is the antithesis? We are told 
that the meaning is, You will have zo xeed to question me, 
because the Holy Spirit will enlighten you. But is not this 
putting violence on the simple ἐμὲ οὐκ ἐρωτήσετε obdév? Further, 
though an antithesis is so strongly demanded by the em- 
phatic ἐμέ, according to this explanation we have none 
expressed, and none which is plainly suggested by the 
immediate context. 

If now, on the other hand, we take ἐρωτήσετε in the sense 
of “ἴο request,” all is smooth and natural. The emphatic 
ἐμέ finds its immediate antithesis in τὸν πατέρα; and we have 
no sudden transition from the subject of putting questions 
to that of petitioning. We have similar examples of the 
interchange of ἐρωτάω and airés in Acts ili. 2, 3, and 1 John 
v. 16; and it accords with the ordinary use of the words, 
ἐρωτάω being elsewhere employed of the requests addressed 
by the disciples to Christ, αἰτέω of their petitions to God. 
Though, after the departure of their Master from the earth, 
the disciples would not address their petitions directly to 
him, as they had done when he was personally present with 
them, they would have all needed aid; whatever they should 
ask of the Father, he would give them in his name,—that is, 
on his account, or on account of their relation to him, they 
being, as it were, his representatives, carrying on his work 
upon the earth ; comp. c. xiv. 26; also, Matt. xviii. 19, 20. 

Though a majority of the best scholars adopt the other 
interpretation, it is too much to say, with Archbishop 
Trench, that “every one competent to judge is agreed”’ that 
the words must be so understood. Among the scholars 
who take ἐρωτάω here in the sense of “to request” are 
Henry Stephens in his Thesaurus, 5. Vv. ἐρωτάω, Grotius, 
Vossius (Harm. Av. 1. c. 18, § 18; Opp. vi. 151), LeGlere 
(Nouv. Test.), Beausobre and Lenfant (4. TZ.), Schoett- 
gen, Archbishop Newcome in his translation, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, Weizsacker (Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol., 1857, ii. 183, 
note), and Weiss (Der johan. Lehrbegriff, Berl. 1862, p. 278), 


αἰτέω AND ἐρωτάω 135 


who in a pretty full discussion of the passage does not 
hesitate to call this an “evidente exegetische Resultat.” * 
Schleusner, in his Lexicon, though explaining the clause 
in question by “habebitis idoneam et perfectam scientiam,” 
says, “‘ Alii non minus commode reddunt, tum nihil amplius 
a me petetis, Confer sequentia”’; and Schirlitz (Worterd, 
sum NV. T., 3° Aufl., 1868) assigns to ἐρωτάω here the mean- 
ing Oz¢ten, ‘to request.” Bretschneider, Wahl, and Robin- 
son do not notice the passage. Among our American com- 
mentators who have assigned this meaning to ἐρωτάω here 
may be mentioned Barnes (though he thinks there may be 
_areference to both meanings of the word), and Dr. Howard 
Crosby, in his Votes on the New Testament. According to 
Bloomfield (Recenszo Synoptica, in loc.), ἐρωτάω is explained in 
this passage as meaning “to request’’ by Chrysostom, Theo- 
dore of Mopsuestia, Theodore of Heraclea, and Theophylact. 
This is, however, not quite correct. Chrysostom, Theophy- 
lact, and also Euthymius recognize doth meanings of ἐρωτάω 
in their notes on the verse, kindly allowing the reader his 
choice. The expression used by Nonnus in his Paraphrase 
may be regarded as ambiguous. There seems to be nothing 
bearing on the point in the writings of Theodore of Mop- 
suestia (Migne’s Patrol. Gre@ca, vol. Ixvi.). Theodore of 
Heraclea is probably the author of some of the notes on the 
Gospel of John, of which fragments have been preserved 
in a Gothic translation published by Massmann under the 
title Sketretns Aivaggeljons thatrh Johannen, Miinchen, 
1834; but there appears to be among them no note on 
John xvi. 23, nor do I know on what the statement of 
Bloomfield respecting this writer can be founded. 

Whatever view may be taken of the disputed passage, the 
interpretation just given has too much in its favor, and is 
supported by too many respectable scholars, to be dismissed 
at once with contempt. 

It may be said, however, that the above explanation of 


*So H. J. de Haan Hugenholtz, Dzsf. theol. zzaug. (Lugd. Bat. 1834), p. 56. He cites 
Vinke as taking the same view, and adds, ‘‘ Utramque notionem conjungere cupiunt STARKIUS 
et VAN HERWERDEN.”’ 


136 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


ἐμὲ οὐκ ἐρωτήσετε οὐδέν is forbidden by the fact that the early 
Christians habitually addressed their prayers to Christ, as 
is shown by the use of the expression ‘to call upon the 
ΠΕ OL the Word,” Acts 1x 14, 20; xxl τὸ; Rom 
Pat n or, 4. 2 (comp. Acts i212 τῇ. 922) 
by the examples of Stephen (Acts vii. 59) and Paul (2 Cor. 
xii. 8). I admit that if the phrase οἱ ἐπικαλούμενοι τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ 
κυρίου aS applied to the early Christians implies that their 
petitions were habitually addressed to Christ instead of to 
the Father in his name, this fact is an objection to the 
interpretation proposed. The question is one of no little 
interest ; but to discuss it here would carry us much too 
far, and might lead into the thorny paths of dogmatic 
theology. 


ΠῚ 


ANCIENT PAPYRUS AND THE MODE OF ΜΑΙς- 
ING, EPAPER PROM IT. 


(From the Library Fournal, vol. iii., No. το, November, 1878.] 


THE Egyptian papyrus plant has played so important a 
part among ancient materials for writing that perhaps the 
Library Journal is a not inappropriate place for the correc- 
tion of a common error respecting it,—an error found not 
only in popular works, but in many of deservedly high repu- 
tation. In Adam’s Roman Antiquities, for example, we 
read that “the papyrus was about ten cubits high, and had 
several coats or skins above one another, like an onion, which 
they separated with a needle” (p. 424, New York ed., 1828). 
In the article “Liber,” in Smith’s Dictionary of Greck and 
Roman Antiquities, the writer says, ‘The papyrus-tree 
grows in swamps to the height of ten feet or more, and 
paper was prepared from ¢he chin coats or pellicles which sur- 
round the plant.” Liddell and Scott’s Greek Lexicon, under 
βίβλος, defines the word, first as “the zuzer bark of the 
papyrus,” and then as “the paper made of this dark.” A 
similar account is given in the Lexicons of Jacobitz and 
Seiler, Pape, and Rost and Palm’s edition of Passow, under 
βίβλος and πάπυρος; so also in the common Latin dictiona- 
ries, English and German, under “Papyrus”; and in many 
encyclopedias, —e,g., the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 8th edi- 
tion, art. “Paper,” v. 17, p. 247; and Pauly’s RealEncyclo- 
pidie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft, ν. 5, pp. 1155, 
1156. Other works of very high character contain this rep- 
resentation, as Becker's Charikles, 2te Aufl. (1854), v. i. 
p. 282 ff., in an elaborate note (compare the English transla- 
tion, p. 161, n. 12); Guhl and Koner’s Life of the Greeks 


138 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


and Romuns, translated from the third German edition 
(Lond. 1875), p. 198 ff., which speaks of the stem of the 
papyrus plant as having about twenty “layers of bark’’ ; 
and so even Marquardt, Riwwsche Privatalterthiimer, Abth. 2 
(1867), p. 390, who has given in general a wonderfully com- 
plete and accurate account of all that relates to the writing 
and book-making of the ancient Romans. 

These are high authorities; but it is safe to say that the 
statements which have been italicized in the quotations given 
above are wholly erroneous. The papyrus plant (Cyperus 
papyrus of Linnzeus, or Papyrus antiquorum, Willd.) belongs 
to the family of Cyperace@, or sedges: it is an endogenous 
plant, with a triangular stem; and to talk about its “ inner 
bark,” and “layers”’ like the coats of an onion, is a simple 
absurdity. One might as well speak of “the inner bark” of 
a stalk of Indian corn, or of a bulrush. The error has orig- 
inated from ignorance or forgetfulness of the elements of 
botany, and the consequent misinterpretation of the passage 
in Pliny (7257. Nxt, xiii. 11-13, al. 21-27), which is our chief 
source of information about the ancient manufacture of 
paper from this plant. One of the words which Pliny uses 
to describe the very thin strips into which ¢he cellular sub- 
stance of the stem was sliced in making the paper is phzlyra, 
which strictly denotes the inner bark of ‘the linden tree, 
also employed as a writing material. Hence, the papyrus 
has been conceived of as an exogenous plant, with its outer 
and inner bark, and has actually been called a “tree’’! 

But though the error to which I have referred has widely 
prevailed, and seems to have a tenacious vitality, it must not 
be supposed that it is universal. The botanists, of course, 
have not made such a mistake; see, ¢.¢., Sprengel, art. “ Pa- 
pyrus,” in Ersch and Gruber’s Allgem. Encycl., Sect. 3, Theil 
II (1838), p. 230; Tristram’s Wat. Hist. of the Bible, 2d ed. 
(1868), p. 435; and Le Maout and Decaisne’s General Sys- 
tem of Botany, translated by Mrs. Hooker (1873), p. 880. 
A correct account is also given in Wilkinson’s Manners and 
Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, v. 3, p. 148, and in Watten- 
bach’s Das Schriftwesen im Mittelalter (1871), p.67. The 


ANCIENT PAPYRUS 139 


most thorough article on the subject with which I am ac- 
quainted is the “ Mémoire sur le papyrus et la fabrication du 
papier chez les anciens,” by M. Dureau de la Malle, in the 
Mémotres d2 l Acad. des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (Insti- 
tut de France), tom. 19, pt. I (1851), pp. 140-183, in which 
the passage of Pliny above referred to is fully explained. 
See also the “ Dissertation sur le papyrus,” by the Count de 
Caylus, in the Wémotres de 1 Acad. des Inscriptions et Belles- 
Lettres (1752-54), tom. 26, pp. 267-320. 

It may be worth while, perhaps, to call attention to 
another mistake in the English translation of Guhl and 
Koner’s Life of the Greeks and Romans, already cited. We 
there read (p. 198), in the account of making paper from the 
papyrus plant: ‘The stalk... was cut longitudinally, after 
which the outer bark was first taken off; the remaining 
layers of bark, about twenty in number (f/7/ure), were care- 
fully severed with a pin; and, afterwards, the single strips 
plaited crosswise ; by means of pressing and perforating the 
whole with lime-water, the necessary consistency of the 
material was obtained.” Léme-water, indeed! The Ger- 
man Letmwasscr and the English “me-qwater are very differ- 
ent things. What is meant is glue-water, water in which 
gluten (Germ. Lezm) has been dissolved. See Pliny, 2.252: 
eu xis 12, al. 26, 

On the botanical questions respecting the papyrus of Sicily, 
Syria, and ancient Egypt, see particularly Parlatore, “ Μέ- 
moire sur le papyrus des anciens et sur le papyrus de Sicile,” 
in the Mém. présentés par divers savants ἃ P Acad. des Sct- 
ences, tom. 12 (1854), pp. 469-502, with 2 plates. Parlatore 
makes two distinct species, and Tristram agrees with him ; 
but Otto Boéckeler, in a recent monograph, “ Die Cyperaceen 
des Koéniglichen Herbariums zu Berlin,” in the Lzznaca, Bd. 
36 (1869-70), pp. 303, 304, regards the Cyperus syriacus of 
Parlatore as only a variety of the Cyperus papyrus of Lin- 
neeus. 


EY; 


ON THE COMPARATIVE ANTIOUMY (OF. Tk 
SINAITIC AND VATICAN MANUSCRIPTS 
OF THE GREEK BIBEE: 


{From the Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. x., No 1, 1872.] 


‘ THE present essay was suggested by a recent work of the 
Rev. J. W. Burgon, Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford, enti- 
tled Zhe Last Twelve Verses of thz Gospel according to 
S. Mark Vindicated against recent Critical Objectors and 
Established (London, 1871). In one of the Appendixes to 
this volume (pp. 291-294), Mr. Burgon has a dissertation ‘On 
the Relative Antiquity of the Codex Vaticanus (B) and the 
Codex Sinaiticus (s),” in which he maintains that certain 
“notes of superior antiquity,” which he specifies, ‘“infallibly 
set Codex B before Codex δῇ, though it may be impossible to 
determine whether by fifty, by seventy-five, or by one hun- 
dred years” (p. 293). He does not doubt that they are “the 
two oldest copies of the Gospels in existence”; but, ‘if the 
first belongs to the beginning, the second may be referred 
to the middle or latter part of the fourth century ” (p. 70). 
Tischendorf, on the other hand, now assigns both MSS. 
to the middle of the fourth century; and even maintains 
that one of the scribes of the Sinaitic MS., whom he desig- 
nates by the letter D, wrote the New Testament part of the 
Codex Vaticanus. Mr Burgon’s arguments are for the most 
part new, and have not, so far as I am aware, been subjected 
to any critical examination. Few scholars, in this country 
at least, have the means of testing the correctness of his 
statements. His book in general, and his discussion of the 
present subject in particular, have been highly praised ; and 
he writes throughout in the tone of one who teaches with 


THE SINAITIC AND VATICAN MANUSCRIPTS 141 


authority, It has seemed to me, therefore, that a review of 
the arguments put forth with such confidence might be of 
interest. 

In the present investigation, I have relied chiefly on the 
original edition of the Sinaitic MS. published by Tischen- 
dorf in 1862 in four volumes folio, printed in fac-simile 
type, with nineteen plates of actual fac-similes of different 
parts of the MS.; and on the similar edition of the Codex 
Vaticanus now publishing at Rome, of which three volumes 
have thus far appeared, two of them containing the Old 
Testament as far as the end of Nehemiah, and the other 
the New Testament part of the MS. I have also used 
Tischendorf’s fac-simile edition of the Codex Friderico- 
Augustanus (another name for forty-three leaves of the 
Sinaitic MS.), published in 1846; his Movum Testamentum 
Vaticanum (1867) with the Appendix (1869) ; and his Appen- 
dix Codicum celeberrimorum Sinattict Vaticant Alexandrint 
with fac-similes (1867). 


Mr. Burgon’s arguments are as follows: (1) “The (all 
but unique) sectional division of Codex B, confessedly the 
oldest scheme of chapters extant, is in itself a striking note 
of primitiveness. The author of the Codex knew nothing, 
apparently, of the Eusebian method.” 

The Vatican MS. has in the Gospels a division of the text 
into chapters, which differs from that found in most MSS. 
from the fifth century onward, and appears, so far as is 
known, in only one other MS., the Codex Zacynthius (2), 
of the eéghth century. It has alsoa peculiar division into 
chapters in the Acts and Epistles. Mr. Burgon finds in its 
scheme of chapters “a striking note of primitiveness.” But 
the Sinaitic has zo division into chapters at all, a prima manu. 
Is not that quite as primitive? Further, Mr. Burgon’s argu- 
ment appears to be of a circular character. The only proof 
of the high antiquity of the “scheme of chapters” referred 
to is its existence in the Vatican MS. 

it may be worth while, perhaps, to remark that the Roman 
edition of the Vatican MS. seems to afford evidence (p. 1272, 


142 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


col. 1, and p. 1299, col. 3) that the division into chapters, 
noted by numbers in red in the margin, was not made by 
the original scribe, but by one who preferred in some places 
a different division into paragraphs. It may have been 
made, however, by a contemporary hand. 

Mr. Scrivener thinks it “ very credible that Codex Sinaiti- 
cus was one of the fifty volumes of Holy Scripture, written 
“on skins in ternions and quaternions,’ which Eusebius pre- 
pared A.D. 331 by Constantine’s direction for the use of the 
new capital.” (Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus, p. xxxvii. f. 
Comp. Euseb. Vita Const. iv. 36, 37.) This is possible, 
though there is no proof of it. Mr. Burgon’s argument, that, 
because the Eusebian sections do not correspond with the 
paragraphs in the Codex Sinaiticus, Eusebius could have 
known nothing of the MS. (p. 294), is utterly futile. The 
object of those sections is totally different from that of a 
division into paragraphs. The Eusebian sections are not 
chapters or paragraphs, but merely serve for a comparison of 
parallel or similar passages in the Gospels. In not less than 
twenty-five instances there are two of them (in one case 
three) in a single verse; see, ¢.g., Matt. xi. 27; Mark xiil. 14; 
Luke vi,21 ; John xix. '6, 15, τὸ: 

The Eusebian sections are not in the Sinaitic MS. a prima 
manu, though they may, as Tischendorf supposes, have been 
added by a contemporary scribe. In that case, the MS. may 
still be older than the middle of the fourth century ; for 
Eusebius died about a.p. 340. It is curious to see how 
Scrivener contradicts himself on this matter in a single page 
(Collation, etc., p. Xxxvii). 

(2) “Codex & (like C, and other later MSS.),” says Mr 
Burgon, “is broken up into short paragraphs throughout. 
The Vatican Codex, on the contrary, has very few breaks 
indeed: e.g., it is without break of any sort from 5. Matth. 
XVil. 24 to xx. 17; whereas, within the same limits, there 
are in Cod. δὲ as many as ¢hzrty interruptions of the context. 
From 5. Mark xiii. 1 to the end of the Gospel, the text is 
absolutely continuous in Cod. B, except in oze place; but 
in Cod. δὰ it is interrupted upwards of fifty times. Again: 


THE SINAITIC AND VATICAN MANUSCRIPTS 143 


from S. Luke xvii. 11 to the end of the Gospel, there is but 
one break in Cod. B. But it is broken into well-nigh az 
hundred and fifty short paragraphs in Cod. δὲ. 

“There can be no doubt that the unbroken text of Codex 
B (resembling the style of the papyrus of Ayperzdes pub- 
lished by Mr. Babington) is the more ancient. The only 
places where it approximates to the method of Cod. &. are 
where the Commandments are briefly recited (S. Matth. xix. 
18, etc.), and where our Lord proclaims the eight Beatitudes 
(S. Matth. v.).” 

Here, apparently, the stress of Mr. Burgon’s argument 
rests on the rarity of paragraphs, indicated by “ breaks,” in 
the Vatican MS., as compared with the Sinaitic. If this is 
so, he has strangely misrepresented the facts in the case. 
In the first passage referred to (Matt. xvii. 24 to xx. 17) 
there are certainly no less than thirty-two “breaks” in the 
Vatican MS., designed to mark a division into paragraphs. 
In two instances (Matt. xvii. 24, xix. 1), the division is made 
by the projection of the initial letter into the left-hand 
margin, in the manner usual in the Sinaitic MS. ; in thirty, 
by a space between the words, and a dash (—) below the 
line where the break occurs, projecting into the left-hand 
margin, after the fashion common in the Herculanean and 
early Egyptian papyri, and also found, though more rarely, 
in-the Sinaitic MS. Besides these thirty-two cases there 
are seven in which a paragraph is indicated by a dash sim- 
ply, the preceding sentence happening to fill the whole line 
above it. There are also in the passage referred to about 
ten places in which the end of a sentence or a paragraph 
is indicated by a space simply. (In respect to the repre- 
sentation of these spaces, there is a little difference, in two 
or three places, between the Roman edition and that of 
Tischendorf.) But, dismissing the simple spaces from the 
account altogether (though they are certainly breaks), we 
have in the first passage selected by Mr. Burgon a division 
into paragraphs in the Vatican MS. even more minute than 
in the Sinaitic. In Mark xii. 1 to xvi. 8 there are thirty- 
nine paragraphs in the Vatican MS. marked by the dash and 


[44 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


space, or by the dash alone, when the preceding line is full; 
and in Luke xvii. Τὶ to xxiv. 53, one hundred and twenty- 
nine paragraphs are thus marked, besides two in which the 
initial letter projects into the margin. There are also places 
in which divisions are marked by spaces alone. 

Such being the state of the case, it may perhaps be 
thought that Mr. Burgon does not mean to argue the supe- 
rior date of the Vatican MS. from the comparative rarity of 
its divisions into paragraphs, but merely from the manner 
in which they are made; and that he intends by “break” 
the projection of the initial letter of a paragraph into the 
left-hand margin, which we find in the Vatican MS. in the 
Beatitudes (Matt. v.), though not in Matt. xix. 18, the only 
other place, according to Mr. Burgon, in which B ‘“approxi- 
mates to the method of Cod...” This, however, can hardly 
be his meaning; for he makes a separate point of that 
feature of the Sinaitic MS. in his fourth argument, which 
will be considered in its proper place. 

As to the frequency of the division into paragraphs, we 
find a great difference in different parts of both the Sinaitic 
and the Vatican MSS. For example, in the Sinaitic MS. 
(vol. ii.), from 1 Macc. v. 55 to x. 18, two hundred and 
forty-nine verses, there is but ove indication of a paragraph 
besides that with which the passage begins. For twenty- 
one entire cclumns of forty-eight lines each, namely, from 
fol.’ 21,*.col. 4, to fol...26, col, 4, anclusive ἰσ tor amore 
than one thousand lines), there is no break and no sign 
of a paragraph whatever. In the First Book of Maccabees, 
which contains thirty-six pages in the Codex Sinaiticus, 
there are sixteen pages in which there is no indication of 
a paragraph, and ten more in each of which but one para- 
graph is marked. In the Fourth Book of Maccabees, the 
paragraphs are still rarer in proportion to its length. In 
the Vatican MS., on the other hand, to anticipate a little 
the answer to Mr. Burgon’s fourth argument, there are 
many pages in each of which from ten to twenty para- 
graphs are marked by the projection of the first letter of 
a word into the left-hand margin; see, ¢.¢., pp. 41, 44, 48, 


THE SINAITIC AND VATICAN MANUSCRIPTS 145 


53, 71, 73-75, 123, 186, 187, 226, 291-294 (vol. i. of the 
Roman ed.); and a page of the Vatican MS. contains con- 
siderably less than a page of the Sinaitic. In respect both 
to the frequency of the paragraphs and to the manner of 
indicating them, much appears to have depended upon the 
fancy of the copyist. The books most read would naturally 
be divided the most. 

(3) “Again,” says Mr. Burgon, “Cod. δὲ is prone to ex- 
hibit, on extraordinary occasions, a stzgle word in a line, 
ΕΒ. εἰ! — 


S. MATTH. xv. 30. 5. MARK xX. 29. S. LUKE Xiv. 13. 
χωλουσ ῃ αδελῴασ πτωχουσ 
τυφλουσ ῃ πατερα αναπηρουσ 
κυλλουσ ῃ μητερα χωλουσ 
κωφουσ ῃ TEKVa Tuphove 


2 


aypovo 


“This became a prevailing fashion in the sixth century; 
e.g., when the Codex Laudianus of the Acts (E) was written. 
The only trace of anything of the kind in Cod. B is at the 
Genealogy of our Lord.” 

Here, again, Mr. Burgon mistakes the facts in the case. 
We find this stichometric mode of giving greater distinct- 
ness to particulars exemplified in repeated instances in the 
Vatican MS., besides the striking one of the genealogy in 
Puke For example, on p: 211, col. 3, of the MS., the 
names of the twenty-two unclean birds in Deut. xiv. 12-18 
appeabveach i a. separate linc. On p: 247, col. 3, there 
is a similar stichometry of six lines; on p. 254, col. 1, one 
of at least twenty-five lines (Josh. xii. 10-22, the list of 
kings), with another example in the same column, and still 
another in the next; and on p. 485, col. 2, there is one of 
eleven lines (the “dukes” in 1 Chron. 1. 51-54). For other 
ππ 5 ΠΟ 5. See pi71,.col. 2; Ρ' 70, ΘΟ Ὁ 274, 00]: 2; ἢ; 3.16, 
ΘΙ 52: ἘΠῚ p: O17; col. 3: 

We find, moreover, in the Vatican MS., the different 
branches of the genealogy in Matthew presented in thirty- 
eight distinct paragraphs; and the beatitudes in Matt. v. 
and the salutations in Rom. xvi. are similarly treated. 


146 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


This may be regarded as a kind of stichometry, of which 
we have also examples in the Old Testament: ¢.g., p. 138, 
Gelert. 2: ΠΡ. 204, col. 15 p. 272, col.” ΣΡ ΘΟ ἘΟΙ τ aa 
that can be said in respect to the first form of stzchz is 
that it is much more common in the Sinaitic MS. than in 
the Vatican, especially in the New Testament. Both MSS. 
have also another mode of making distinct the items of an 
enumeration; namely, by spaces between the words, with 
or without dots (the Roman edition of B does not agree 
with Tischendorf’s about the dots); e.g, Rom. i. 29-31, 
both.<LSS. ;-and in the Vatican, 1 / Cor. τ Ὁ ei 
xiv. 20; (Gal. 'v. 19=23; Phil. av. 8; (ΟΠ ὃ. Pheschoice 
between the modes seems to have been determined by the 
taste of the scribe; compare, for example, in the Vatican 
MS., Lev. xi. 13-19 with Deut. xiv, 12-18 (pp. 111 and 
211). It cannot be made a criterion of date. 

(4) Mr. Burgon’s fourth argument is this: “ At the com- 
mencement of every fresh paragraph, the initial letter in 
Cod. & slightly projects into the margin, beyond the left-hand 
edge of the column, as usual in all later MSS. This char- 
acteristic is only not undiscoverable in Cod. B. Instances 
of it there ave in the earlier Codex; but they are of exceed- 
ingly rare occurrence.” 

The expression “as usual in all later MSS.” is likely to 
mislead. There is a great difference between the style of 
the Sinaitic MS. and that of the Alexandrine, the Ephraem, 
and later MSS. generally, in respect to the mode of indicat- 
ing the beginning of paragraphs. In the Sinaitic, the initial 
letter, which slightly projects, and often does not project at 
all, is no larger than the rest, a peculiarity found in but 
a very few existing MSS., and those the oldest known to 
us. In the other MSS. referred to, the initial letter, or, 
when the new paragraph begins in the middle of a line, the 
first letter of the line following, is very much larger than 
the others, and stands out wholly in the margin, giving 
these MSS. a strikingly different appearance from that of 
the Sinaitic and the Vatican. But the characteristic which 
Mr. Burgon says is “exceedingly rare,” “only not undis- 


THE SINAITIC AND VATICAN MANUSCRIPTS 147 


coverable,” in the Vatican MS., occurs ten times on the 
very first page of that MS.; and in the first two hundred 
and ninety-four pages, namely, from Gen. xlvi. 28 (ror) to 
I Sam. xix. II (ayyedouc), there are 1,441 examples of it. 
Though less common in the New Testament part of the 
MS., in the first eight pages it occurs thirty-one times. 
When Codex B was written, the choice between this mode 
of indicating the beginning of a paragraph and the other, 
described under Mr. Burgon’s second argument, was evi- 
dently a matter depending on the taste of the copyist. 
In the two hundred and ninety pages follow:ng the word 
ayyedovs in I Sam. xix. 11, extending to the end of Nehemiah, 
there are but ¢wo clear examples of it; namely, on pp. 343, 
484. (The projecting letter, pp. 578 and 606, is not the first 
letter of a paragraph or even of a word.) In the two Books 
of Chronicles, the First Book of Esdras, and the Books of 
Ezra and Nehemiah together, there is zo example of that 
mode of indicating paragraphs which is usual in the Sinaitic, 
and so common in the first two hundred and ninety-four 
pages of the Vatican (pp. 41-334). The natural inference 
is that we have in the part of the MS. beginning with 
page 335 the hand of a different scribe; and this inference 
is confirmed by the striking difference between these pages 
of the MS. and those which precede, in respect to the use 
of > to fill up a space at the end of a line, and by other 
peculiarities. Even Mr. Burgon will hardly contend that 
the scribe who wrote page 334 of the Codex Vaticanus 
lived fifty or one hundred years after the writer of page 335. 

Both of these modes of indicating paragraphs are of an 
antiquity greatly exceeding that of the Sinaitic and Vatican ἡ 
MSS. The use of the space between words and the dash 
or some other mark to attract attention in the left-hand 
margin of the column (παραγραφή OF παράγραφοσ, Something 
written at the side), in the old Herculanean and Egyptian 
papyri, has already been mentioned. See, for a specimen, 
the beautiful papyrus of a Greek treatise on rhetoric, written 
before 160 B.c., published in fac-simile in “ Papyrus grecs du 
Musée du Louvre,” etc., edited after Letronne by Brunet de 


148 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Presle (tom. xviii., 2° ptie. of Motices et extratts des mani- 
scrits, etc., published by the French Institute, Paris, 1865), 
pl. xi, pap. No. 2. (Also in Silvestre, Paléogr. univ., pl. 
55.) In the same volume, pl. xxxiv., pap. 49, in a letter of 
a certain Dionysius to Ptolemy, about 160 B.c., we have per- 
haps the earliest known example of the use of two dots like 
our colon for separating paragraphs, in conjunction with the 
marginal dash, precisely like the style which frequently 
occurs in both the Vatican and the Sinaitic MSS., though 
the Vatican more commonly omits the dots. Finally, in the 
curious “ Nativity” or Thema genethliacum, dated in the first 
year of the Emperor Antoninus (a.D. 138), of which a fac- 
simile is given in pl. xxii., pap. 19, and also in Silvestre, pl. 
58, we have numerous paragraphs indicated by the projec- 
tion of the first letter, or the first two or three letters, into 
the left-hand margin; and, for the most part, this initial is 
of considerably larger size than the rest of the letters. 
This, however, is not a d00% manuscript. 

(5) “ Further,’ says Mr. Burgon, “Cod. & abounds in 
such contractions as aoc, ovoc (with all their cases), for 


ανϑρωποσ, ovpavoc, etc. Not only πνα, xp, περ, zpu, pps (for πνευμα, 


πατηρ-τερ-τερα, μητερα)» but also στρϑη, τηλ, τηλημ, for σταυρωϑη, ισραηλ, 
ἐερουσαλημ. 

“But Cod. B, though familiar with τσ, and a few other 
of the most ordinary abbreviations, knows nothing of these 
compendia: which certainly cazzot have existed in the 
earliest copies of all. Once more, it seems reasonable to 
suppose that their constant occurrence in Cod. δὲ indicates 
for that Codex a date subsequent to Cod. B.” 

Here, Mr. Burgon, as usual, misstates the facts. The con- 
traction for ανϑρωποσ is found in the Vatican MS., p. 137, 
col. 1; p. 146, col. 2; p. 160, col. 1; that for xvevyza occurs 
twice on the first page of the New Testament (Matt. i. 18, 
20), also Matt. iii. 11, 16, iv. 1, and often elsewhere, par- 
ticularly in the Old Testament (five times, for example, 
p. 331, col. 1, and again twice in col. 2); προ for zarepoo 
occurs p. 69, col. 1; p. 190, col. 3 (marg. note) ; p. 226, col. 2; 
wot for ισραηὰλ occurs hundreds of times: for instance, in 


THE SINAITIC AND VATICAN MANUSCRIPTS 140 


Exod. xiv. it is contracted sixteen times out of seventeen 
in which it occurs, and in Josh. xi. eighteen times out of 
twenty.* It will be hard to find “wu” as the contrac- 
tion for «ἐρουσαλημ in the Vatican MS. or in any other, but 
wu occurs Josh. xii. 10, and 4, Josh. x. I, 3, XV. 5. Σταυρωϑὴη 
is contracted but ozce in the Sinaitic MS., where we also 
have once (in Rev. xi. 8) a unique contraction of εσταυρωϑη, 
which Tischendorf has neglected to express in the text of 
his quarto edition, though he has spoken of it in the Pro- 
legomena (p. xx.; compare the larger edition, vol. i. col. 8, 
of Prol.). 

In this matter of contractions, much appears to have 
depended on the fancy of the scribe; and, as a criterion 
of antiquity, it must be used with caution. We find in 
the Vatican MS. contractions for several words, as καὶ, μου, 
ανϑρωποσ, υἱοσ, μητηρ, ουρανοσ, δαυειδ, topay2, ιερουσαλήημ, which are never 
contracted in Codex D (the Cambridge MS.), written two 
centuries later. In the papyrus MS. of Philodemus, “De 
Deorum vivendi Ratione,’ published in vol. vi. of the 
FHlerculanensia Volumina, and consequently written as early 
as A.D. 79, we find a number of remarkable contractions 
not known to exist in any other Greek MS., or certainly in 
any of similar antiquity. In different parts of the Vatican 
MS. there is a marked diversity in this respect; for exam- 
ple, in the part of the MS. extending from 1 Kings xix. ΤΙ 
to the end of Nehemiah, as compared with the preceding 
portion. The same is true of the Sinaitic MS., particu- 
larly in the six leaves of the New Testament which Tischen- 
dorf attributes to the scribe D, whom he now supposes to 
be zdzntical with one of the scribes of the Vatican MS. For 


*In a single column of the Vat. MS. (p. 711, col. 2), we find the contractions αν ν, 
ovvov, πνα, ἵλημ, in”, all of which Mr. Burgon says are never found in it. See also 
ανος, pp. 678b, 753>; avov, PP- 753, 756%, 8230: avov, Pp. 756%, 762>, 8240: avo, 
p. 8032; avove, P- 773. So πρ΄ς, PP. 783%, 808b, 8999, 93193 μρς, PP- 707, 7539; γς, 
p. 7612. For /A7u, see also pp. 675, 689, 711, 7518, 764», 765%, 7688, 913; for (λμ, PP. 763, 
930%. We find also the contraction dad, ΡΡ. 331%, 334%, 3340, 4142 (47s), 7508. 


7In the first two hundred and ninety-four pages of the Vatican MS. (pp. 41-334 of the 
edition), πνεῦμα occurs forty-two times, in forty of which it is contracted; in the next two hun- 
dred and ninety pages, it occurs forty-one times, in forty of which it is zo¢ contracted. There 
is a similar difference of usage in respect to the contraction of the word ἐσραηλ. 


150 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


example, in fol. 15 of the Sinaitic MS., written by D, woo 
(sing.) occurs five times, and is always written in full. In 
the contiguous leaves (14 and 16), written by A, it occurs 
nine times, and is always contracted. On fol. 15, αἀνϑρωποσ 
is written six times in full, once only contracted. In the 
contiguous leaves it occurs eleven times, and is always con- 
tracted. In fol. 10, written by D, ovpavos occurs nine times, 
and is always written in full, as it seems to be in the Vati- 
can MS. On the next leaf, written by Ay it occurs ten 
times, and in six of them is contracted. (The statement in 
Tischendorf’s Mov. Test. Vat., Prol. p. xxii., differs from. the 
above in four particulars, in consequence, apparently, of 
oversights in counting.) 

(6) Mr. Burgon’s sixth argument is founded on the follow- 
ing facts. The Gospel of Mark in the Vatican MS., as well 
as the Sinaitic, ends with verse 8 of the sixteenth chapter. 
But in the Vatican MS., where the ending occurs near the 
bottom of the second column, the third column is left blank, 
and théGospel of Luke bepims on the mext page, “ Pig,” 
says Mr. Burgon, “is ¢hz only vacant column in the whole 
manuscript” (p. 87). In the Sinaitic MS., in which there are 
four columns to a page, the Gospel of Mark ends on the 
second, and that of Luke begins on the third. The Vatican 
MS. has at the end of verse 8 the usual arabesque which 
is placed at the end of a book, and the subscription «ara 
Mapxov. But the phenomenon of the blank column is, to Mr. 
Burgon, “in the highest degree significant, and admits of 
only one interpretation. Zhe older MS., from which Cod. 
B was copied, must have infallibly contained the twelve 
verses in dispute. The copyist was instructed to leave them 
out —and he obeyed: but he prudently left a blank space zz 
memoriam ret” (p. 87). The Sinaitic, on the other hand, 
“was copied from a Codex which had been already muti- 
lated”’ (p. 88). This difference between the MSS. seems to 
Mr. Burgon “ἃ very striking indication that Cod. B is the 
older of the two. Cod. δὲ is evidently familiar with the 
phenomenon which astonishes Cod. B by its novelty and 
strangeness ” (p. 292). 


THE SINAITIC AND VATICAN MANUSCRIPTS 151 


Eusebius, in the first quarter of the fourth century, ex- 
pressly testifies that the last twelve verses of the Gospel of 
Mark were wanting “in the accurate copies” and “in almpst 
all the copies” of that Gospel, but were found “in some 
copies: (Quest. ad Marinum, δ. 1. Opp. iv. 937, in 
Migne’s Patrol. Gr. tom. xxii.) Suppose, then, that the 
Vatican MS. was transcribed in the age of Eusebius from a 
copy which contained the passage, why may not the Sinaitic 
have been transcribed at the same time from one which did 
not contain it? 

With Mr. Burgon, a conjecture seems to be a demonstra- 
tion. There is to him but one possible explanation of that 
blank column. But, considering the well-known tendency 
of copyists and possessors of MSS. to add rather than to 
omit,—a tendency which would be very strong in the pres- 
ent case, in consequence of the abruptness of verse 8 as an 
ending, and of which the existence of another ending be- 
sides the disputed verses is a proof,— another conjecture may 
be proposed. Why may we not suppose that the exemplar 
from which the Vatican MS. was copied did zo¢ contain the 
last twelve verses, but the copyist, or owner of the MS.,, 
having at some time seen or heard of them, left on that 
account the blank column in question? We have a similar 
phenomenon in the case of Codices L and Δ at John vii. 52, 
and in Codex G at Rom. xiv. 23. 

Mr. Burgon is not strictly correct in saying that the case 
to which he refers is ‘the only vacant column”’ in the Vat- 

ican MS. Two columns are left blank at the end of Nehe- 
miah ; but this may be accounted for by the different style 
(stichometric) in which the next following book, the Psalms, 
is written.* 

(7) Mr. Burgon’s last argument is as follows: ‘The most 
striking feature of difference, after all, is only to be recog- 
nized by one who surveys the Codices themselves with at- 
tention. It is ¢zat general air of primitiveness in Cod. B 


* A column and a half are also left blank at the end of the Book of Tobit (p. 944), presenting 
an appearance remarkably similar to that of the end of the Gospel of Mark. This may be, 
however, because it is on the last leaf of the quinion, or quire. 


152 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


which makes itself at once χε}. The even symmetry of the 
unbroken columns ;—the work of the prima manus every- 
where vanishing through sheer antiquity ; the small, even, 
square writing, which partly recals the style of the Hercula- 
nean rolls, partly the papyrus fragments of the ‘Oration 
against Demosthenes’ (published by Harris in 1848) :—all 
these notes of superior antiquity infallibly set Cod. B before 
Cod. δὲ; though it may be impossible to determine whether 
by fifty, by seventy-five, or by one hundred years.” 

On this, we may remark: (a) That “the even symmetry of 
the unbroken columns” has been shown to exist, so far as 
a large part of the MS. is concerned, only in Mr. Burgon’s 
imagination; and that, where it does exist, it has a parallel 
in parts of the Sinaitic. (0) The work of the prima manus 
is rarely to be seen in the Vatican MS., a scribe of the 
tenth or eleventh century having retraced all the letters 
with fresh ink, adding accents and breathings, except in 
those places where he wished to indicate that something 
should be omitted (¢.g., the accidental repetition of a word 
or sentence). In the passages where the work of the first 
hand remains untouched, of which we have fac-similes (2.2.5 
John xiii. 14; Rom. iv. 4; 2 Cor. iii. 15, 16), the original 
writing appears to have been well preserved. We may add 
that a scribe of the eighth or ninth century has retouched 
with fresh ink many pages of the Sinaitic MS. ; and this had 
already been done toa considerable extent by a still earlier 
senibe(Tischendort, JV. 7: 2¢. Sem. ΤΠ ΡΒ τευ i) As 
to the appearance of the Sinaitic MS., we have the tes- 
timony of Dr. Tregelles that, “though the general sem- 
blance of the whole work is somewhat less worn than that 
of Cod. Vaticanus (whose extensive hiatus prove how care- 
lessly.it has been kept), when it comes to be contrasted 
with such a MS. as the illustrated Dioscorides at Vienna 
(whose age is fixed by internal evidence at about A.D. 500), 
that interesting and valuable MS. looks comparatively quite 
fresh and modern” (Scrivener’s Coll. of Cod. Sin. p. xxxi.). 
(c) The writing in the Sinaitic is just as ‘‘even and sguare” 
as that of the Vatican. In the form of the letters, Tischen- 


THE SINAITIC AND VATICAN MANUSCRIPTS 153 


dorf expressly says that there is not the least difference, 
—ne minimam quidem discrepanttam (Nov. Test. Vat. p. 
xix.). Mr. Burgon’s argument, then, must rest wholly on 
the difference in szze, the letters in the Vatican MS. being 
perhaps one-third srnaller than those in the Sinaitic. (There 
is a difference in size in different parts of the two MSS. 
themselves, as is shown by the fac-similes and by Tischen- 
dorf’s express testimony.) It is difficult to deal seriously 
with such an argument; but, if any explanation is needed, 
it may be suggested that the extraordinary size of the skins 
on which the Sinaitic MS. is written, allowing four columns 
to a page, of forty-eight lines each (the Vatican has three 
columns of forty-two lines), would naturally lead a callig- 
rapher to make letters somewhat larger than usual. And, 
if Mr. Burgon will look again at a few of the Herculanensia 
Volumina, say the one last published (vol. v. of the second 
series), he will find that in some of the papyri there repre- 
sented we have letters of the size of those in the Codex 
Sinaiticus, while in others they are less than half that size. 


Such are “the notes of superior antiquity” which “ infal- 
libly ” prove that the Vatican MS. is fifty or one hundred 
years older than the Sinaitic. 


A few words may be added in respect to Mr. Burgon’s 
treatment of the principal subject of his work. The speci- 
men which has been given illustrates some of his prominent 
characteristics as a writer; but, judging from this alone, we 
might do him injustice. His book is to be welcomed as 
giving the results of earnest original research on the sub- 
ject to which it relates. It brings to light many interesting 
facts, and corrects some errors of preceding scholars. It 
is written, however, with great warmth of feeling, in the 
spirit of a passionate advocate rather than that of a calm 
inquirer. The author appears to have been especially stim- 
ulated to the defence of the last twelve verses of the Gospel 
of Mark by his zeal for the damnatory part of the Atha- 
nasian Creed, which he not only regards as justified by Mark 


154 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


xvi. 16, but actually zdentzfics with that verse. H> says: 
“The precious waruing clause... (miscalled ‘damnatory’), 
which an impertinent officiousness is for glossing with a 
rubric, and weakening with an apology, proceeded from 
Divine lips,—at least, if these concluding verses be gen- 
uine” (p. 3. This is only one of many examples which 
might be cited of the tendency of Mr. Burgon to confound 
the certainty of a fact with the certainty of a very dubious 
or even preposterous inference from it. For the new crit- 
ical material which he has amassed, every student will thank 
him, and also for the clear and satisfactory discussion of 
some special topics, as the so-called Ammonian sections ; 
but there is much in his book which cannot fail to mislead 
an unwary or ill-informed reader. His conclusions are often 
strangely remote from his premises, but his confidence in 
them is boundless. He not only claims to have shown that 
the genuineness of the disputed passage ‘‘must needs be 
reckoned among the things that are absolutely certain,” but 
appears to expect that in consequence of his labors “it will 
become necessary for Editors of the Text of the New Tes- 
tament to reconsider their conclusions in countless other 
places, .. . to review their method, and to remodel their text 
throughout ” (p. 254). This seems indeed a sad prospect for 
Tischendorf and Tregelles and Westcott and Hort, who have 
so utterly mistaken the true principles of textual criticism 5 
but a careful examination of Mr. Burgon’s book will greatly 
relieve the anxiety of their friends. 


MV: 


THE LATE PROFESSOR TISCHENDORF.* 


[From the Uxitarian Review and Religious Magazine for March, 1875.] 


Tue death of Professor Tischendorf at Leipzig, Dec. 7, 
1874, after a lingering illness of a year and a half from a 
stroke of paralysis, deserves more than a cursory notice. 
The loss to Biblical learning is, in some respects, Irrepara- 
ble; for he left unfinished important works, which can 
hardly be completed by any successor. The amount, how- 
ever, of what he did accomplish is marvellous; and we can 
hardly be surprised that even an exceptionally strong physi- 
cal constitution should have suddenly given way under the 
strain of such intense and unremitting activity. A brief 
sketch of his life, and an enumeration of his chief publica- 
tions, will show how great are his claims to the gratitude of 
all Biblical scholars. 

Lobegott (Latinized, Aenotheus) Friedrich Constantin 
Tischendorf was born at Lengenfeld, in Voigtland, a district 
of Saxony, Jan. 18, 1815. After five years of preparatory 
study at the Gymnasium in Plauen, he entered the Univer- 
sity of Leipzig in 1834, devoting himself to the study of the- 
ology and philology. Here, in 1836, he won a prize for an 
essay entitled ‘‘ Doctrina Pauli Apostoli de vi mortis Christi 
satisfactoria,’ which was printed in 1837. In 1838, he pup- 
lished a volume of poems called Mazkuospen, “‘ May-buds.” 
These buds do not seem to have blossomed, though one of 
the poems had the honor of being set to music by the great 


* Constantin Tischendorf in seiner fiinfundswanzigjihrigen schriftstellerischen Wirk- 
samkeit. Literar-historische Skizze von Dr. Joh. Ernst Volbeding. Leipzig: C. F. Fleischer. 
1862. Svo. pp. vi., 98. 


Beilage zur Allgemeinen Evang.-Luth. Kirchenzeitung, Nr. 50. Leipzig, ἃ. 11.Decem- 
ber, 1874. ᾿ 


156 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


composer Mendelssohn. In 1838, he signalized the close of 
his university studies by another prize essay, ‘‘ Disputatio 
de Christo pane vitae,” an exegetical and doctrinal disserta- 
tion on John vi. 51-59, published in Leipzig in 1839. After 
receiving the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the Univer- 
sity, he spent a year and a half in teaching, near Leipzig, 
and in this period, besides translating one or two small 
works from the French, tried his hand at a novel entitled 
Der junge Mystiker, “The Young Mystic,” published under 
the pseudonym of “Dr. Fritz.” In October, 1839, he re- 
turned to Leipzig with the purpose of preparing a critical 
edition of the Greek Testament, and entered in earnest upon 
those labors to which the remainder of his life was devoted. 
Here he published, in 1840, an essay on Matt. xix. 16 ff, 
the first-fruits of his studies in textual criticism, and a disser- 
tation on the so-called Recensions of the text of the New 
Testament, with particular reference to Scholz’s theory, 
which he effectually demolished. His first edition of the 
Greek Testament appeared at Leipzig with the date 1841, 
though the volume was printed before the end of the year 
1840. It was a convenient manual, giving the various read- 
ings of the Received Text, Knapp, Scholz, and Lachmann, 
with the more important authorities, and showing, on the 
whole, good critical judgment. The essay on Recensions, 
confuting Scholz’s theory, was reprinted in the Prolegomena, 
and is the most valuable part of the book. The edition was 
favorably received as a work of promise, being warmly wel- 
comed, especially by the veteran critic, David Schulz. 

In preparing this edition, Tischendorf was struck with the 
defectiveness of our knowledge of even the most important 
MSS. of the New Testament, excepting the very few whose 
text had at that time been published. This deficiency he 
determined to do his best to supply, as the first essential 
condition of improvement in New Testament criticism. He 
proposed to visit the chief libraries of Europe for the pur- 
pose of making accurate copies or collations of all the uncial 
MSS. of the New Testament. But he was wholly desti- 
tute of the pecuniary resources required for such an enter- 


THE LATE PROFESSOR TISCHENDORF 157 


prise. At last, through great exertions on the part of the 
theological faculty of Leipzig, represented by such men as 
Winer, Illgen, and Niedner, seconded by Von Falkenstein, 
the Minister of Public Instruction, he obtained from the 
government of Saxony a subsidy of one hundred thalers for 
two successive years ; other necessary funds he could only 
raise by pledging a life-assurance policy for the repayment 
of a small loan; and when, finally, he set out for Paris, in 
October, 1840, he was so poor that, to use his own words, he 
was unable to pay for the cloak which he wore,— “ tam pau- 
per... ut pro paenula quam portabam solvere non possem” 
Ort S59; Pars’ 1.; p. viil.). 

At Paris, he made it his first object to copy with the great- 
est care, and prepare for publication, the celebrated Ephraem 
MS. of the fifth century, a palimpsest extremely difficult to 
decipher, and which had been but very imperfectly collated. 
The New Testament part of this MS. was published at Leip- 
zig in 1843, in a splendidly printed volume, with excellent 
Prolegomena; the Old Testament portion appeared in 1845. 
Tischendorf’s edition of this MS. was a most important ser- 
vice to Biblical criticism, and gained for him, in 1843, the 
honorary degree of Doctor of Theology from the University 
of Breslau. While at Paris, besides collating thoroughly or 
copying other important MSS. of the New Testament, as 
K, L, M, of the Gospels and D (Codex Claromontanus) of 
the Pauline Epistles, he prepared (in 1842), at the instance 
of the celebrated publisher Firmin Didot, two editions of the 
Greek Testament. One of these was designed particularly 
for the use of Catholics, the Greek text being conformed, as 
far as any MS. authority would allow, to the Latin Vulgate, 
with which it was printed in parallel columns, forming one of 
the volumes of Didot’s Library of Greek Authors. By way 
of offset to this ‘‘ Catholic edition,’ which was dedicated to 
Affre, Archbishop of Paris, and the Greek text of which was 
also issued separately, he published another dedicated to 
Guizot, containing a text substantially the same as that of 
his Leipzig edition, but without the Prolegomena and critical 
authorities. By these publications, and by further aid from 


158 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


the government of Saxony, and the liberality of private 
friends, he obtained the means of widely extending his trav- 
els for the collation and collection of MSS. 


At this point, it will be convenient to give a synopsis of 
the various journeys taken by Tischendorf for critical pur- 
poses, from first to last. More than eight years were spent 
in these travels. His chief objects were the collation or 
copying for publication of all the important uncial. Greek 
MSS. of the New Testament and of the Septuagint that had 
not already been published; the collation of MSS. of the 
Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelations, and of the 
pseudcpigrapha of the Old Testament ; and the collection of 
materials for a work on Greek paleography. He gave spe- 
cial attention, moreover, to important unpublished MSS. of 
the Old Latin version and the Vulgate, and collated for the 
use of Grossmann all the MSS. which he could find of the 
writings of Philo of Alexandria, a new critical edition of 
which is so much needed. For these purposes, in the years 
1841-44, he not only spent a long time at the Royal Library 
in Paris, but visited the libraries of Utrecht, in Holland; 
London, Oxford, and Cambridge, in England ; Basle, in Switz- 
erland ; Carpentras, in France; and Rome, Florence, Naples, 
Venice, Modena, Verona, Milan, and Turin, in Italy; and, 
after his return from his first Eastern tour, explored, at con- 
venient seasons, the libraries at Vienna, Munich, Dresden, 
Hamburg, and Wolfenbiittel, in Germany; Ziirich and St. 
Gall, in Switzerland; and St. Petersburg and Moscow, in 
Russia,— the last named city being visited by him in 1868. 
England he revisited for critical purposes in 1849, 1855, and 
1865; Paris, in 1849 and 1864; and Rome and Naples, in 
1866,— using for such excursions the vacations which re- 
lieved him from his labors at the University of Leipzig, 
where in 1845 he was made Professor Extraordinary, in 
1850 Honorary Professor, and in 1859 Ordinary Professor of 
Theology and Biblical Paleeography, the latter professorship 
having been founded expressly for him. 

Tischendorf's great acquisitions of wzew MS. treasures 


THE LATE PROFESSOR TISCHENDORF 159 


were made in his three journeys to the East, undertaken 
in 1844, 1853, and 1859, in which he visited Egypt, Sinai, 
Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece, bringing home 
most valuable collections of Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, 
Hebrew, Samaritan, and other Oriental MSS. His expenses 
in the first two journeys were largely defrayed by the govern- 
ment of Saxony ; and the greater part of the MSS. collected 
were accordingly transferred to the library of the Univer- 
sity at Leipzig, though some were sold to the British Mu- 
seum, others to the Bodleian Library at Oxford. The third 
journey, memorable for the discovery of the world-renowned 
Sinaitic MS., was prosecuted under the auspices of the Rus- 
sian government; and the rich manuscript collections ob- 
tained are deposited in the Imperial Library at St. Peters- 
burg. The great prize secured in the first journey, in 1844, 
was the forty-three leaves of a MS. of the Septuagint, of 
the fourth century, which Tischendorf rescued from a waste- 
basket in the monastery of St. Catharine at Mount Sinai, 
and published in 1846, in lithographed fac-simile, under the 
title Codex Friderico-Augustanus, in honor of his royal 
patron, Frederick Augustus II. of Saxony. This proved 
afterwards to be a part of the famous Codex Sinaiticus dis- 
covered in 1859. Tischendorf published an interesting pop- 
ular account of his first Oriental journey in two volumes 
(1845-46), entitled Rezse zz den Orient, translated into Eng- 
lish, London, 1847 ; and of the third, with the title Aus dem 
heiligen Lande, in 1862. The latter has been translated 
into French and Swedish. The MS. treasures secured in 
these journeys are described in his Axecdota Sacra et Pro- 
fana (1855, second edition, enlarged, 1861) and Wotetza Codicis 
Sinattict, etc. (1860). The whole story of the Sinaitic MS. 
is told in a very interesting pamphlet entitled Dze Sznxazbibel. 
Thre Entdeckung, Herausgabe, und Erwerbung. (‘The Sinai 
Bible; its Discovery, Publication, and Acquisition.” ) Leip- 
Zig 1871. 


We will now take a view of the principal publications of 
Tischendorf, in which the fruits of these researches have 


160 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


been given to the world. They mostly fall into three classes: 
first, Editions of MSS. of the New Testament and the 
Septuagint ; second, Editidns of the Greek Testament and 
οἷ the Septuagint ; third, Editions of Apocryphal Christian 
Writings. 

I. Of the first class, we have already noticed the editions 
of the Ephraem MS., published in 1843-45, and the Codex 
Friderico-Augustanus, 1846. Next comes the Monumenta 
Sacra Inedita, 1846, a large quarto volume, containing the 
text of the important MS. L of the Gospels, and six others, 
ἘΝ W’, Y, © of the Gospels, and B of the Apocalypse ; 
then the “ Evangelium Palatinum,” 1847, being. the remains 
of a MS. (fourth or fifth century) of the Old Latin version, 
with a remarkable text; the Codex Bobbiensis, another 
important MS. of the Old Latin, of about the same date, 
published in the Wiener Jahrbiicher, 1847-49; the New 
Testament part of the Codex Amiatinus, supposed to be 
the oldest MS. of the Latin Vulgate (1850, new edition 
1854); the Codex Claromontanus (D), a very important 
Grzeco-Latin MS. of the. Epistles of Paul, of the sixth cen- 
tury (1852); and, finally, the great Sinaitic MS., published at 
St. Petersburg, in magnificent style, in fac-s¢mzle type, in 
four folio volumes, in 1862, glorifying the millennial anniver- 
sary of the founding of the Russian Empire. Of this splen- 
did work, three hundred copies were printed, two hundred of 
which were distributed by the Russian government, as pres- 
ents, to eminent personages or public libraries, while one 
hundred were given to Tischendorf for sale, the price being 
fixed at two hundred and thirty thalers. A smaller edition, 
containing the New Testament portion, with the Epistle of 
Barnabas and a part of the “ Shepherd” of Hermas, in ordi- 
nary type, but representing the MS. line for line, and with 
improved Prolegomena, was published in quarto, at Leip- 
zig, in 1863; and in 1865 appeared Movum Testamentum 
Graece ex Stnattico Codicc, with the variations of the Re- 
ceived Text and of the celebrated Vatican MS. in the mar- 
gin, to which was added a supplement of corrections in 1870. 
For critical purposes, this last edition does not entirely take 


THE LATE PROFESSOR TISCHENDORF 161 


the place of that of 1863; but the Introduction is fuller, 
and it is a convenient and useful book. In 1867, Tischen- 
dorf published his Movum Testamentum Vaticanum, giving 
the text of the New Testament part of the famous Vatican 
MS. (B) far more correctly than it had been published by 
Cardinal Mai. But he was not allowed to examine the MS. 
long enough to edit it in a perfectly satisfactory manner, 
though the forty-two hours spent upon it were turned to 
wonderfully good account. His Appendix Novi Testamenti 
Vaticanz, published in 1869, after the appearance of the 
splendid Roman edition, corrected a few errors which, under 
the circumstances, were inevitable, and also gave us for the 
first time a correct edition of the MS. B of the Apocalypse. 
A sharp pamphlet, entitled ‘‘ Responsa ad Calumnias Roma- 
nas” (1870), may be regarded as another supplement to this 
edition. In 1867, Tischendorf also published Appendix Cod- 
acum celeberrimorum Sinattict Vaticant Alexandrint, contain- 
ing a few fragments of the Codex Sinaiticus found in the 
binding of certain MSS., twenty select pages of the Vati- 
can MS. printed line for line, and a careful edition, from the 
Alexandrine MS., of the Epistles ascribed to Clement of 
Rome, which have been preserved in that MS. alone, and 
had before been inaccurately edited. The Prolegomena to 
this volume, and to the Movum Testamentum Vaticanum, 
are valuable, as giving the results of a special study of the 
palzeographical characteristics of the Vatican MS. Tischen- 
dorf comes to the remarkable conclusion that one of the 
four scribes engaged on the Sinaitic MS., and who wrote 
six pages of the New Testament portion of it, was zdentical 
with the scribe who wrote the New Testament portion of 
the Vatican MS. 

It remains for us to notice under this head the new col- 
lection of Monumenta Sacra Inedita, which was to comprise 
nine large quarto volumes, seven only of which had appeared 
at the time of Tischendorf’s death. Vol. I. (1855) contains 
many important palimpsest fragments of both the New Tes- 
tament and the Old, and the remarkable papyrus MS. in 
the British Museum of a part of the Psalms (fourth cen- 


162 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


tury’); Vol. II. (1857), among other things, the Nitrian 
palimpsest R of the Gospel of Luke (sixth century), and 
the Cottonian fragments of Genesis (fifth century), “saved 
so as by fire’; Vol. III. (1860) gives us the MSS. Q (fifth 
century) and W° of the Gospels, and one hundred and thirty- 
one leaves of the very important Codex Sarravianus of the 
Octateuch (fourth or fifth century); Vol. IV. (1869), the 
beautiful Ziirich Psalter (seventh century), written in letters 
of silver and gold on purple vellum, also the Book of Daniel 
from the Codex Marchalfanus (seventh century); Vols. V. 
and VI. (1865 and 1869), the recently discovered palimp- 
sest P of the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse, Codex Porfiria- 
nus (ninth century),— Vol. VI. also containing the Wolfen- 
biittel palimpsest P of the Gospels (sixth century) ; in Vol. 
IX. (1870) we have the Grzco-Latin MS. E of the Acts, 
Codex Laudianus (sixth century),* with additional portions 
of the Septuagint from Codex Marchalianus. Vol. VII. was 
to have contained a Wolfenbiittel MS. of Chrysostom, of the 
sixth century, and other uncial fragments of Chrysostom, 
giving many quotations from the New Testament and the 
Old; Vol. VIII., numerous fragments of the Septuagint 
and the New Testament from palimpsests and other very 
ancient MSS. It is probable that these volumes will still 
be published. 

II. We come now to Tischendorf’s editions of the Greek 
Testament and of the Septuagint. Besides the two (or 
three) Paris editions already mentioned, Tischendorf pub- 
lished the Greek Testament at Leipzig in fwenty-two edi- 
tions, the last (Editio academica octava), issued just before 
his death, bearing the date 1875. Of these, however, be- 
sides his youthful essay of 1841, only three possessed dis- 
tinctive critical importance,— namely, the second Leipzig 


*This MS. was published in 1715 by the celebrated antiquarian, Thomas Hearne. The 
impression, however, being limited to one hundred and twenty copies, the book had long since 
become excessively rarc. Though a small volume, published originally at ten shillings a copy, at 
the sale of Dr. Gough’s library it fetched at auction twenty pounds. It has occasionally sold for 
much less; but both on account of its extreme rarity, and because Hearne’s edition was far from 
accurate (the same may be said of Hansell’s publication of its text in 1864), Tischendorf has ren- 
dered an important service to Biblical criticism by this faithful edition. There is a copy of 
Hearne’s edition, as well as of Tischendorf’s, in the library of Harvard College. 


THE LATE PROFESSOR TISCHENDORF 163 


edition of 1849, in which were utilized the critical materials 
thus) far, collected; the ““seventh larger critical. edition,”’ 
issued in thirteen parts from 1855 to 1858, making two 
thick volumes (dated 1859), with a greatly enlarged appa- 
ratus, and giving for the first time a clear statement of the 
evidence both for and agazust the principal readings ; and, 
finally, the ‘eighth larger critical edition,” issued in eleven 
parts, the first dated October, 1864, the last published in 
1872, completing the ¢ext in two octavo volumes (1869-72). 
In richness of critical material, this eighth edition far sur- 
passed any that preceded it. Among the new sources 
drawn from may be mentioned the MSS. collected by Tisch- 
endorf in his third Eastern journey, including the Sinaitic; 
the accurate publication of the text of the great Vatican 
MS., and also B of the Apocalypse, which had been edited 
by Tischendorf in 1846 from a very hurried collation; the 
Codex Porfirianus, already mentioned; Scrivener’s careful 
editions of the Codex Augiensis and the Codex Bezae, the 
former accompanied by a full collation of fifty cursive MSS. ; 
Tregelles’s edition of the Codex Zacynthius ; and the publi- 
cation of the Jerusalem Syriac version of the Gospels by the 
Count Miniscalchi-Erizzo. The quotations of the Christian 
Fathers are also given much more fully and accurately than 
before. Tischendorf must also have derived great advan- 
tage from the previous publication of the successive parts 
of Tregelles’s elaborate edition; indeed, he seems to have 
deliberately delayed the issue of his own Lzeferungen for 
the sake of this benefit. 

In regard to the text of this last edition, as compared with 
its predecessors, it may be observed that the influence of 
the Sinaitic MS. is very marked, and that more weight is 
attached to a few of the most ancient authorities than was 
allowed them in previous editions, especially that of 18509. 
Less regard is paid —too little, perhaps, in some cases —to 
internal evidence. According to Dr. Scrivener’s reckon- 
ing (Nov. Test., Cantabrigiae, 1873), the text of the eighth 
edition varies from that of the seventh in about three thou- 
sand three hundred and fifty-nine places. The true number 


164 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


is doubtless somewhat larger, as about a hundred variations 
are overlooked in Scrivener’s collation. Most of these differ- 
ences, however, are of little importance. A part of them 
may be ascribed to a modification of Tischendorf’s critical 
principles since the publication of his seventh edition ;* 
others to the new evidence brought to bear on cases where 
the authorities were before nearly balanced. In some in- 
stances, a natural partiality for the Sinaitic MS. seems to 
have led its discoverer to defer too much to its authority ; 
but, on the whole, this edition of Tischendorf may be re- 
garded as presenting the best text which has yet been pub- 
lished. No editor has given clearer evidence of freedom 
from theological bias; though, in his adoption of “kingdom 
of heaven,” instead of “kingdom of God,” in John 11]. 5, it 
may be feared that the desire to nullify a weak argument 
of the Tiibingen critics against a supposed reference to the 
passage by Justin Martyr has turned the scales of his crit- 
ical balance in opposition to the real weight of evidence.t 

Accompanying the seventh large critical edition (1859) 
there was issued a smaller, ‘‘Editio septima critica minor,” 
in a single volume, the Prolegomena and critical apparatus 
being much abridged. The Zyste Halfte of a similar abridg- 
ment of the eighth critical edition was published in 1872, 
but I am not aware that it has been completed. ᾧ 


* The fullest statement of the rules which he has followed will be found in the Prolegomena to 
the three manual editions published in 1873, described below. He admits that, “ after long waver- 
ing” (zach lingerem Schwanken), he has adopted substantially the principles of Bentley and 
Lachmann. See his Haden wir den dchten Schrifttext der Evang. und A postel ? (1873), p. 17. 


+ As Tischendorf has published few corrections of the last /wsczczlus of this edition (pp. 8οι-- 
1044), it may be a convenience to some to point out here certain errors in the ¢ezx¢ that might 
easily be passed over unobserved,—cases in which the zofes show that a certain change was 
intended, which, through some oversight, was not actually made. A considerable number of such 
mistakes occurred in the earlier fascicudi, and five in this are corrected by Tischendorf himself 
in the brief temporary preface to vol. ii.; but others will be found as follows: Rev. ii. το, for 
βαλεῖν read βάλλειν; ii. 4, for ὀλίγα ἔχεις read ἔχεις ὀλίγα; ν. 8, for ai εἰσιν read 
a εἰσιν: vii. 15, for TO θρόνῳ read τοῦ θρόνου; x. 11 Omit ἐπὶ before ἔθνεσιν ; ΧΙ. 11, omit 
τὰς before τρεῖς ; 12, for φωνὴν μεγάλην... λέγουσαν read φωνῆς μεγάλης .. . λεγούσης; 
xiv. 14, for τὴν κεφαλὴν read τῆς κεφαλῆς; Xvii. 1, omit τῶν both before and after ὑδάτων ; 
xvill. 9, for κλαύσουσιν read κλαύσονται. A bad misprint, because nit immediately obvious, 
is the substitution of ὑμῖν for ἡμῖν in Heb. vii. 26, repeated from the edition of 1859. Obvious 
misprints will be found in the text in Rev. xvii. 14, xvili. 12, xxi. 19. A long list might be given 
of errors in the notes to this edition: but, in such a multiplicity of minute details, oversights are 
unavoidable. It may be doubted whether any modern editor has, on the whole, surpassed Tisch- 
endorf in accuracy. 


(t The Zweite Ha!fte, completing the work, appeared in 1877.] 


THE LATE PROFESSOR TISCHENDORF 165 


Of Tischendorf’s minor editions, we may notice first, as 
most important, the Novum Testamentum triglottum, pub- 
lished in 1854; new edition, “cum triplici tabula terrae 
sanctae,’ 1865. This contains, in parallel columns, (1) the 
Greek text of his edition of 1849, slightly revised, with the 
variations of the Received Text and other noticeable read- 
ings in the margin; (2) the Latin Vulgate critically edited, 
chiefly from the Codices Amiatinus and Fuldensis (gener- 
ally supposed to be the two oldest MSS.),* with the varia- 
tions of the Clementine Vulgate in the margin; and (3) 
Luther’s German translation, carefully printed from the 
edition of 1545, with occasional corrections from other edi- 
tions published in Luther’s lifetime. The Greek text was 
also issued separately, as an Lditzo academica, often re- 
printed,—in the seventh edition (1873) from the text of 
Tischendorf’s last critical edition; it was also published, 
accompanied by the Latin or the German, as a diglott; and 
the Latin and German texts were also themselves issued 
separately. Each division has its appropriate Prolegomena, 
orintroduction. The Latin part is specially valuable as the 
nearest approximation to a really critzca/ edition of Jerome’s 
version of the New Testament which has yet been pub- 
lished; and the German part is valuable, as the popular 
editions of Luther’s version contain many unauthorized 
changes of his text, the famous passage, for example, of 
the three heavenly witnesses (1 John v. 7, 8) having been 
interpolated in his translation about thirty-six years after 
his death, and appearing in nearly all the editions issued in 
the three following centuries. Tischendorf, in his Prole- 
gomena, denounces with just indignation this falsification of 
Muthers text. 

After the issue of the critical edition of 1840, its text was 
reproduced, with slight modification, in a stereotyped man- 
ual edition of octavo size, published by Tauchnitz in 1850, 
the variations of the Received Text being given in the 


*TThe date (A.D. 541) assigned to the Codex Amiatinus by Bandini and Tischendorf is 
questioned by K. L. F. Hamann in Hilgenfeld’s Zeztschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1873, p. 596, on 
grounds which deserve attention. He refers it to the seventh century. There can be no doubt, 
however, of the excellence of its text. 


166 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


margin. A second edition, with enlarged Prolegomena, but 
essentially the same text, was printed in 1862. In 1873, 
Tauchnitz published a new edition, Editio tertia stereo- 
typa. Ad editionem vitt. criticam matorem conformata. 
This gives in the lower margin, together with the readings 
of the Received Text, the principal variations of the Sinaitic 
MS. from the text adopted by Tischendorf. In size and 
general appearance, it corresponds to the series of Greek 
classical authors published in large octavo by Tauchnitz. 
It has twenty-six pages of Prolegomena, which are the more 
valuable as the Prolegomena to the large critical edition 
have not appeared, and, it is greatly to be feared, were 
never written out for publication. A somewhat later man- 
ual edition, though bearing the same date (1873) on the 
title-page, was published by Brockhaus, matching in size 
and type Tischendorf's edition of the Septuagint. This 
has some advantages over the Tauchnitz edition just de- 
scribed. It gives the principal variations of the famous 
Vatican MS. as well as the Sinaitic; and the Prolegomena, 
though essentially the same, have received some additions 
and corrections. The type, however, is smaller and less 
agreeable to the eye than that of the Tauchnitz edition.* 


- 


* The errors in the text of the large critical edition, which were pointed out above, reappear 
in the text of the manual editions published in 1873 by Tauchnitz, Brockhaus, and Mendelsschn 
(Zd. academica), except the one in Rey. xviii. 9, which is corrected in them all, and that in Rev. 
xi. 11, corrected in the Brockhaus edition. The Tauchnitz edition has also errors of the text in 
Luke xxiv. 4, αὐτοῖς for αὐταῖς" John i. το, ἐπέστειλαν for ἀπέστ.; Jude 15, αὐτῶν should 
be omitted after ἀσεβεῖς; Heb. vii. 26, for ὑμῖν read ἡμῖν; Tit. ii. 3, for μὴ οἴνῳ read μηδὲ 
οἴνῳ; Rev. xix. 17, insert ἐν after ἔκραξεν; 20, for τὴν καιομένην read τῆς καιομένης. 
Obvious misprints occur in John iv. 32, ix. 40; Acts xxiv. 20. The mistakes in Luke xxiv. 4, 
Jude 15, and Heb. vii. 26, are found also in the Brockhaus edition and the seventh Zditio 
academica. The Brockhaus edition has also incorrectly in James iii. 8, ἀνθρώπων δαμάσαι 
for δαμάσαι ἀνθρώπων. [All these oversights are corrected in the manual edition edited with 
extreme care by Dr. Oscar von Gebhardt and published by Tauchnitz in 188r (3d ed. 1886). This 
edition reproduces the text of the Editio tertia stereotypa mentioned above, but prefixes a new 
preface, and gives at the bottom of the page (besides references to parallel passages) a collation of 
Tischendorf’s text with those of Tregelles and Westcott and Hort. Thirty-six pages of critical 
annotations are added at the end. This edition is issued in two forms: one giving the Greek 
alone, the other exhibiting the Greek text and Luther’s translation on opposite pages. Other state- 
ments made above it seems hardly necessary to supplement by mentioning that the First Part of 
the ‘‘ Prolegomena to the large critical edition’’ appeared in 1884, prepared by Dr. C. R. Gregory 
with the assistance of Prof. Abbot, that the Syzofsis evangelica was reissued in 1878 and 1884, 
and that Tischendorf’s Septuagint reached a sixth edition (with a supplement by Nestle, giving a 
collation of Cod. Vat. and Sin.) in 1880. See Dr. Gregory’s chronological catalogue of Tischen- 
dorf’s publications given in the Prolegom. pp. 7-22, and the article by Bertheau in Herzog’s 
Real-Encyklopidie, etc., 2te Aufl., xv. 672-691.) 


THE LATE PROFESSOR TISCHENDORF 167 


In connection with these editions of the Greek Testa- 
ment, we may mention Tischendorf’s Syxapsis evangelica, a 
Greek harmony of the Gospels on the tripaschal theory, 
with a critical apparatus giving briefly the evidence for the 
principal various readings. Of this convenient manual, 
three editions were published,—in 1851 (new zmpresszon, 
1854), 1864, and 1871. In the edition of 1864, an excessive 
regard for his newly discovered Sinaitic MS. betrayed Tisch- 
endorf into the adoption of a considerable number of read- 
ings which a sober second thought afterwards led him to 
reject. Compare, for example, the editions of 1864 and 1871 
τ ΠπππΠ τ χεῖν. Γ92., 21; John i. 18,* 

Of the Septuagint, Tischendorf published four editions: in 
1850, 1856, 1860, and 1869. He did not attempt a critical 
recension of the text, but reprinted the text of the Roman 
or Vatican edition of 1587 with the correction of typograph- 
ical errors, noting in the margin the various readings of 
the Alexandrine and Ephraem MSS., and of the Codex 
Friderico-Augustanus. The text was stereotyped in the 
first edition, but in the second and later editions was 
added the real Septuagint version of the Book of Daniel 
from the Codex Chisianus ; and the Prolegomena in succes- 
sive editions were enlarged and improved. In the last 
edition, a few pages of the text were reset from the stereo- 
type plates, so that ini Sam. xii. 18 to xiv. 9 (wanting in 
Codex Alexandrinus) the variations of the Vatican MS. are 
given from the recent Roman edition; and in Ps. xlix. 19 to 
Ixxix, 11 (also wanting in Codex Alexandrinus) the readings 
Othe Sinaitic MS. are noted. ἵπ thes preface to this 
edition (p. vii.), Tischendorf expressed his intention of 
undertaking, after the publication of his Monumenta Sacra 
Inedita should be completed, a new edition of the Septuagint, 
—‘“talem qualem litterae sacrae poscunt et per instrumenta 
critica perfici licebit,’” —in which the large mass of impor- 
tant materials now at our command should be critically 


* The following errata in the edition of 1871 might give trouble: Prolegomena, p. xxii. 1. 20 
[1.31 of the 5th ed.], for awze read ax; p. lix. 1. 13 []. 15 of the 5th ed.], for 1858 read 1868; 
p. 176, text, 1. 11, for ἐμβλέποντες read βλέποντες. 


τοῦ CRITICAL ESSAYS 


used, This is a great desideratum; and, now that Tischen- 
dorf’s foreboding that he might not live to accomplish this 
has been unhappily verified, it is gratifying to know that an 
eminent English Biblical scholar proposes the same task.* 
Promising beginnings of work in this department have 
already been made in Germany by O. F. Fritzsche in his 
critical editions of the Greek text of Esther, Ruth, and 
Judges (Ziirich, 1848, 1864, 1867), and especially his excel- 
lent edition of the Apocrypha (Lzbri apocryphi Vet. Test. 
Graece, Lips. 1871), and by P. A. de Lagarde in his Geneszs 
Gracce, etc. (Lips. 1868). 

III. The third important division of Tischendorf’s publi- 
cations includes his editions of Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, 
and Revelations. His Acta Apostolorum apocrypha was 
published in 1851; Evangelia apocrypha, in 1853; Afo- 
calypses apocryphae, in 1866. For these three volumes, 
more than one hundred MSS. were used. Nineteen of 
the pieces contained in them had never been published 
before, while others were for the first time given in full. 
Ample Prolegomena are prefixed to the text, and the various 
readings of the MSS. are exhibited in the notes; but there 
is no attempt to supply that illustrative commentary which 
renders the unfinished edition by Thilo so valuable. How- 


* See the announcement in the 7xdependent, Jan. 21, 1875, p. 11. 


+ Passing over the more obvious typographical errors in Tischendorf’s fourth edition of the 
Septuagint, it may be well to point out some mistakes likely to cause trouble. Page vii. 1. 8, for 
1 Macc. read 2 Macc.; p. xxxv., 2d par., 1. 11, for 20 read 10; p. xli., 2d par., 1. 3, dele the 
clause beginning 4, 39; p. lvi., 2d par., 1. 2, for sedeczm read septendecim. MHere, as on pp. 
Ivii. and cix., Tischendorf overlooks the fact that the famous Zirich Psalter was among the 
MSS. (namely, No. 262) used by Holmes and Parsons in their edition of the Septuagint. 
Page xcv. 1. 6, before davimA insert weCexinA; p. cix. 1. 8, for sedecim read septendecim. 
Vol. i., Gen. xxv. 30, for ἑψήματος the Roman ed. reads EWEUaATOC ; Gen. xxviii. 11, note, read 
ἐπέθηκεν : xxxi. 48, note that Alex. reads μου for ἐμοῦ, and xliii. 17, ἄνθρωποι for ἄνδρες; 
Ex. xxix. 17, for παὶ read καὶ; 22, for ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν read ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν (one of the Zex corrections in 
the Roman ed.); Num. xxvii. 18, for ὕὅστις read ὃς (another pen correction); Deut. xi. 10, dele 
ὑμεῖς (another pen correction); xxxii. 39, for ἀποκτενῶ read ἀποκτέννω (so Rom. ed. and the 
Vat. MS.); 49, for χῆν read γῆν; Josh. xvii. 10, for "Hpaiu read "Edpaip ; 1 Esdras vi. 24, for 
ξυστῶ tread ξυστῶν ; ix. 27, note, for ζαχαριίος read—ac; 28, note, for Capdatog read— ac. 
Vol. ii, Ps. xix. 9, for ἀνωρθώθημεν read ἀνορῇ. (so both the Roman ed. and Sin.; B has 
ἀνωρῇ. See Tischendorf’s Prolegom. p. xli., note 2; also, Luke xiii. 13, in his WV. 7.); civ. 
g, note, before κληρονομ. insert 11; 11, for ἡμῶν (misprint in Rom. ed.) read ὑμῶν, with 
Sin., Vat., Comp., Ald., etc. ; cx. 1, for gov read gov ; cxiii. 23, for ἡμεῖς (perhaps misprint in 
Rom. ed.) read ὑμεῖς, with Sin. ; exlili., inscription, for κατεδιώκει read καταδιώκει, With Sin., 
Vat.; Ezek. xv. 2, for ἐν read ἐκ : Hab. iii. 17, for γεννήματα read γενήματα (so Rom. ed., 
Sin., Vat.), and erase foot-note. 


THE LATE PROFESSOR TISCHENDORF 169 


ever slight may be the intrinsic worth of the productions 
thus brought together, they have no little antiquarian inter- 
est, throwing much lght on the later superstitions and 
legends which became current in the church, and serving 
by their striking contrast to enhance our estimate of the 
value of the canonical writings of the New Testament. 

In connection with these editions should be mentioned a 
dissertation published by Tischendorf in 1851, entitled De 
Evangeliorum apocryphorum Origine et Usu, which received 
the prize offered by the Society at the Hague for the Defence 
of the Christian Religion. This has long been out of print; 
and the new and greatly enlarged edition, announced about 
two years ago as in preparation, we can never hope to see. 
A brief essay published by Tischendorf in 1855, Platz circa 
Christum Judicio quid Lucis afferatur ex Actis Pilati, is 
also out of print. A second edition of the Evangelia apocry- 
pha was promised by Tischendorf in 1873 ;* and in the pref- 
ace to his Afocalypses apocryphae, p. x., he speaks of various 
unpublished documents which he had reserved for a Corpus 
Novi Testamenti apocryphum. He had also promised, among 
other things, an edition of the Zestaments of the Twelve 
Patriarchs from four MSS., including one discovered by him 
at Patmos in 1844, “δα tollendam imperfectissimam Grabii 
editionem.”” This would have been very welcome, as the 
book is one of the most curious remains of the early Chris- 
tian literature, and, even after Mr. Sinker’s praiseworthy 
labor, greatly needs a new critical edition. It is to be 
hoped that Tischendorf’s materials may pass into the hands 
of some scholar qualified to carry out his plans. 

IV. We may now mention some works of Tischendorf's 
not belonging to the three classes thus far noticed. 

In 1865, he published a small volume, written ‘in a popu- 
lar style, entitled Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst ? 
(“When were our Gospels composed?”) The reputation of 
the author gave it a wide and rapid circulation, a second edi- 


*[It was completed by Friedrich Wubrandt, and published in 1876.] 


170 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


skeptical school of critics, as Hilgenfeld and Volkmar In 
the fourth edition of the work, published in 1866, Tischen- 
dorf entered into the discussion of the question at issue much 
more fully, reviewing his reviewers, and, it must also be 
confessed, repaying their abusive language in the same coin 
with interest. In this enlarged edition, the book is one of 
the most vigorous of the recent defences of the genuineness 
of the Gospels. It has been published, in the longer or 
shorter form, in no less than fifteen editions in different lan- 
guages, having been translated into English, French, Ital- 
ian, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, Russian, and Turkish. The 
fourth edition of the original was translated, in this country, 
by Rev. William L. Gage, and published by the American 
Tract Society in 1867 or 1868. In simple justice to Tischen- 
dorf, it is necessary to say that this translation in many 
places sadly misrepresents the original, sometimes com- 
pletely reversing the sense, more frequently making non- 
sense; and that important words, clauses, or even whole 
sentences are often omitted.* 

We may next take notice of the edition of the authorized 
English version of the New Testament, with an Introduc- 
tion and various readings from the Sinaitic, the Vatican, 
and the Alexandrian MSS., published under the editor- 


* A few examples must be given. Translation, p. 115 (Germ. 65): “15 the accusation brought 
against Marcion, ... that he made arbitrary changes, .. . anything else than empty inference?’’ 
For ‘‘anything else than’’ read ‘‘ nothing but’? (nichts als). The whole sentence is badly 
translated; and the first sentence on the preceding page (p. 114) does not afford even a glimpse of 
the true meaniag. Trans. p. 243, note 50 (Germ. p. 34, ἢ. 2): “‘ That the translation of John 
found a place in some of our manuscripts of the Septuagint is zo less than an evidence,”’ etc. 
Read, ‘‘ is anything but an evidence.’? The connection should have prevented such a misunder- 
standing of the idiomatic ‘‘ nichts weniger als.’’? The last part of the sentence to which this note 
refers (Trans. p. 70, Germ. 34) is rendered: ‘‘ Vet there ἐς one of the older versions... which 
coincides,” etc. What Tischendorf says is, ‘‘ Vor does even a single one of the old versions... 
coincide” (noch auch stimmet eine einzige...der alten Uebersetzungen... zt). Trans. p. 
282, note 157 (Germ. 116, n. 2), z#bestritten, “‘uncontested,”’ is translated ‘‘a subject of dispute’! 
Trans. p. 204 (Germ 121, 122), Tischendorf is made to speak of ‘‘ Greek manuscripts written 272 
the first century’’ (!) as among our sources of textual criticism, /akrtausend being confounded 
with Jahrhundert. After describing Marcion’s Gospel as an arbitrary mutilation of the Gospel 
of Luke, Tischendorf is represented as saying (Trans. p. 105, Germ. 58), ‘’ The correctness of 
this »zode of procedure, employed even by the oldest Fathers of the Church, wzs confirmed in a 
striking manner in his dealing with the Pauline Gosfels’’ [sic]. Read, ‘‘ The correctness of this 
view of the matter, which was that of the oldest Fathers of the Church, zs established beyond dis- 
pute by his treatment of the Pauline Z/zs¢les.’’ Trans. p. 110 (Germ. 62), “‘ die evangelische Pre- 
digt,”? ‘‘the gospel preaching,”’ in contrast with the written Gospels, is translated “‘the Sermon 
on the Mount’?! Three lines further on, the essential words ‘‘ they say” are omitted, and the 


THE LATE PROFESSOR TISCHENDORF ΤῈ 


ship of Tischendorf by B. Tauchnitz, at Leipzig, in 1869, 
as the thousandth volume of the Tauchnitz Collection of 
British Authors. Of this, it is said that forty-five thousand 
copies were sold in the first year; and it has undoubtedly 
done much to awaken a popular interest in the textual criti- 
cism of the New Testament, and to show the need of 
a revision of our translation which shall embody its well- 
established results. It is to be regretted, however, that the 
English text is disfigured by typographical errors, and that 
the notes respecting the various readings contain many mis- 
takes, especially in reference to the readings of the Vatican 
MS. There are also some strange translations, as ‘‘ before 
all the world,’ Jude 25, for πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος. Whether 
these errors are attributable to Tischendorf, or to his 
coadjutor, Mr. B. Harris Cowper, may be a question. The 
Introduction by Tischendorf, as it appears in the earlier 
copies published, is a curiosity in point of style. In later 
impressions, it was rewritten.* 

In 1868, Tischendorf made a valuable contribution toward 
a new edition of Philo in his Phz/onea, inedita altera, altera 
nunc demum ex vetere scriptura eruta. A considerable part 
Omcmie treatise “De Septenario, sivelde Decem) Mestisn 
here appears for the first time; and the text of other impor- 
tant treatises, which had been edited before only in a 
very imperfect form by Mangey and Cardinal Mai, is 


whole sentence is very badly'translated. The same may be said of the sentences immediately 
preceding and following. Pages 64, 65 (Germ. 30), the translator makes Tischendorf stultify him- 
self by saying that it is “‘ the first half of the second century to which we trace the main origin of 
the diverse materials which enter into the canon, and more especially the Gospels.’? What 
Tischendorf is speaking of is the various readings of the zext. The sentence on page 69(Germ. 34), 
beginning ‘* What atrick,’ is full of errors. On the same page (Germ. 33), the plurals ‘“‘ Lahme, 
Gichtbriichige, und Blindgeborene”’ are translated “‘oxe who was born lame, palsied, and blind’’! 
The notes to this sentence and the next are mistranslated, and the first and last sentences of the 
preceding note (Trans. p. 242, Germ. 33) are rendered into nonsense. The same is true of the 
first and fourth sentences of note 38, and the first of note οἵ (Trans. pp. 235, 258, Germ. 26, 64). 
A multitude of similar mistakes might be pointed out; but thes are enough to justify a protest 
against judging of Tischendorf’s work by the representation of it which has been given to Ameri- 
can readers. 


* The first sentence reads as follows in the earlier copies: ‘‘ A magnificent display of human 
intellect in the Literature of England and America was that which the noble originator of this col- 
lection aspired to accomplish, for the benefit of the educated world beyond the native countries of 
the Authors represented.’’? In later impressions, it reads: “ΤῸ place the glorious works which 
adorn the literature of England and America within reach of the readers of other countries was 
the aim of the noble originator of the ‘ Tauchnitz Collection.’ ”’ 


172 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


restored from MSS. in the libraries at Rome, Florence, and 
Munich. It is greatly to be lamented that Grossmann 
should have died without publishing more fully the results 
of his life-long study of Philo; but Tischendorf encourages 
us by stating in his preface that a critical edition of this 
author has been long in preparation by J. C. W. Otto, whom 
he represents as well qualified for the task. 

In 1873, Tischendorf published a second edition of the 
Epistles of Clement of Rome, already referred to in speak- 
ing of his Appendix Codicum cel., etc. (p. 161). This may 
probably be regarded as presenting the text in its most 
authentic form. In the same year, he also completed the 
valuable edition of the Latin Vulgate version of the Old 
Testament begun by Theodor Heyse, in which the various 
readings of the best MS., the Codex Amiatinus, are given 
throughout; and still later, in conjunction with S. Baer 
and Prof. F. Delitzsch, he published Liber Psalmorum Hebra- 
zcus et Latinus ab Hteronymo ex Hebraeo conversus (Lips. 
1874). 


Such, though very imperfectly described, are the princi- 
pal literary labors of Tischendorf. We have already seen, 
under each of the three great classes into which his publica- 
tions fall, that he had made preparation for other important 
works, several of which, had his health been spared, would 
ere this have been given to the world. Besides these, he had \ 
announced for speedy publication a translation of the New 
Testament into German from the text of his Greek Testa- 
ment, and Religuzae Graecarum Litterarum antiquisstmae, 
containing, with other matter, fragments of Menander, 
Euripides, and Dion Cassius, from MSS. of the fourth and 
fifth centuries. But what is most to be deplored is, first, 
the absence of the Prolegomena to his last critical edition of 
the Greek Testament, a want which no other hand can fully 
supply ; and, in the second place, the loss of his promised 
work on Greek palzeography, for which he had been making 
preparation for over thirty years, and which was to be 
accompanied with more than one hundred plates of the 


THE LATE PROFESSOR TISCHENDORF 173 


largest size, giving fac-similes of MSS. The best exist- 
ing work on the subject, Montfaucon’s Palacographia Graeca, 
was published in 1708; and, though in respect to cur- 
sive MSS. it will always be of great value, our mate- 
rials, so far as the uncial MSS. and early papyri are 
concerned, have been immensely enlarged since his time. 
As long ago as 1856, when Tischendorf’s practised eye 
instantly detected the fraud in the Uranios palimpsest of 
Simonides, which had imposed upon William Dindorf and 
Lepsius, and came near costing the Berlin Academy five 
thousand thalers, he had already critically examined, for 
palzographical purposes, about fifty Greek palimpsests and 
more than one hundred and twenty Greek uncial MSS.* 
His later researches, especially his third journey to the 
East, must have considerably increased his materials. Prob- 
ably no scholar in Europe possessed qualifications to be com- — 
pared with his for the execution of such a work. 


The later portion of Tischendorf’s life in its brilliant 
success presented a striking contrast with the arduous strug- 
gles of his earlier years. His enthusiasm was magnetic ; 
his single-hearted devotion to the pursuit of his great ob- 
jects, and the proof which he gave of ability as well as zeal, 
soon gained him a host of powerful and generous friends, 
so that, after the first obstacles were surmounted, he seems 
never to have lacked the means for prosecuting his expen- 
sive undertakings. Honors were showered upon him from 
every quarter:—orders of knighthood, crosses, and other 
insignia from many of the governments of Europe, honor- 
ary membership in learned societies too numerous to men- 
tion; the degree of Doctor of Laws from the University of 
Cambridge, in England, and that of Doctor of Civil Law 
from the University of Oxford; so that “his titles,” to 
borrow the expression of an unfriendly critic, “fill half a 
page.” The king of Saxony, always his friend, made him 
Privy Councillor ; and finally, in 1869, an imperial ukase, 


*See Lykurgos’s Exthiillungen iiber den Simonides-Dindorfschen Uranios, 2te Aufl., 
1856, p. 76. 


174 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


“in recognition of his great scientific merits, and of his 
services to Russia especially,” elevated him to the rank of 
an hereditary noble of the Russian Empire, an honor which 
was recognized by the government of his own country, so that 
in his later publications his name appears as “ Constantin 
von Tischendorf.” Freedom from vanity was not his most 
conspicuous virtue, and it may be that he valued somewhat 
too highly such titles and distinctions; but who shall say 
that he did not richly deserve them all? 

It is to be feared that there is no German critic on whom 
the mantle of Tischendorf has fallen. But, in recounting 
his achievements, we cannot fail to associate with him the 
name of at least one English scholar. The labors of Dr. 
Tregelles, in the department of Biblical criticism, are 
second in importance only to those of Tischendorf. But 
we have no space to characterize them here. The services 
also of Dr. Scrivener, in accurately editing the Codex 
Augiensis and the Codex Bezae, in publishing collations 
of about seventy cursive MSS., and in the preparation 
of other important works, particularly his J/xtroduction 
to the Criticism of the New Testament, deserve most grateful 
acknowledgment. And every scholar must look with great 
interest for the publication of the long-promised critical 
edition of the Greek Testament undertaken by Dr. Westcott 
and Mr. Hort, which has been in preparation for more than 
twenty years, and may be confidently expected to prove a 
contribution to Biblical literature of marked originality and 
value. [See Essay IX. below. ] 


VE 


THE ΕΑ bike, TREGELLES: 


[From the Jazdependent for July 1, 1875.] 


THE most eminent English scholar in the department of 
textual criticism as applied to the Greek Testament, second 
only to Tischendorf in the extent and importance of his 
labors in this field of learning, has after a few months, as 
we learn by recent intelligence, followed his illustrious 
compeer to the grave. Dr. Tregelles died at his residence 
in Plymouth, England, on the 24th of April last, after having 
been disabled for about five years by a shock of paralysis, 
which literally struck the pen from his hand as he was 
revising the concluding chapters of the Book of Revelation. 
The circumstances attending his last illness were thus 
remarkably similar to those in the case of Tischendorf, 
who, though spared to complete the text of his eighth and 
most important critical edition of the Greek Testament, 
was soon after prostrated by a stroke of apoplexy, followed 
by paralysis, and compelled to leave the long-desired Pro- 
legomena unwritten. The concluding part of the text of 
Tregelles’s edition was published in 1872, by the aid of 
some of his friends; but the Prolegomena have not yet ap- 
peared. [See page 181, note.] 

Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (the name is pronounced in 
three syllables, Tre-gel-les) was born at Falmouth, in Corn- 
wall, England, Jan. 30, 1813. His parents belonged to the 
Society of Friends, and he was for a time connected with 
that religious body. Afterward, he became associated with 
the Plymouth Brethren, but ultimately disengaged himself 
from that sect. He was educated, according to Allibone, at 
the Classical Grammar School in Falmouth, from 1825 to 


176 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


1828; between 1828 and 1834, he was employed in the iron 
works at Neath Abbey, Glamorganshire, and afterward 
was engaged for a short time in private tuition near Ports- 
mouth. Though lacking the advantages of a university 
education, he was full of scholarly zeal, and devoted himself 
with special earnestness to the study of the Scriptures in 
the original languages and some of the oldest versions, 
particularly the Syriac. His interest in the study of 
Hebrew was shown by his translation of Gesenius’s He- 
brew Lexicon, published by the Bagsters in 1847, and 
by some elementary works, as Hebrew Reading Lessons 
(1845), an interlineary Hebrew Psalter and Heads of Fle- 
brew Grammar (1852). He had also a share in the prep- 
aration of several other important aids to Biblical study, 
in some of which his name does not appear,—as The 
Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance to the 
Old Testament (1843), The Englishman's Greek Concordance 
to the New Testament (1839), and The English Hexapla, 
published by the Bagsters in 1841, for which he wrote 
the very valuable “Historical Account of the English 
Versions of the Scriptures,” which was prefixed to it on its 
first issue. (In later impressions of the work, a different 
“Historical Account,” less full and comprehensive, was 
substituted. The latter is ascribed to the Rev. Christopher 
Anderson.) 

As early as August, 1838, Dr. Tregelles had formed the 
plan of a critical edition of the Greek Testament, to be 
founded solely on ancient authorities, and had prepared a 
specimen; but his first published essay in the department 
of textual criticism was The Book of Revelation in Greek. 
Edited from Anctent Authorities, with a new English Ver- 
ston and Various Readings (London, 1844). This work 
at once commanded the respect of scholars for the care 
and thoroughness with which it was executed, though it 
was in direct opposition to the spirit of superstitious rev- 
erence which then prevailed in England for the so-called 
Received Text. After its publication, Dr. Tregelles de- 
voted himself in earnest to the preparation of a critical 


THE LATE DR. TREGELLES 77 


edition of the Greek Testament, the prospectus of which 
was issued in 1848. The text was to be formed on the 
authority of the oldest Greek MSS. and versions, and the 
citations of early ecclesiastical writers, including Eusebius, 
with an accurate statement of the evidence, in the case of 
all important variations, both for and against the read- 
ings adopted. The Received Text was justly treated as 
having no authority in itself, and no account was made 
of the great mass of cursive MSS. Completeness and 
accuracy in the exhibition of the evidence of the witnesses 
used were especially aimed at. To this end, Dr. Tregelles 
personally collated with extreme care nearly all the known 
uncial MSS. in the libraries of Europe of which the 
text had not before been published, visiting the Contti- 
nent for this purpose in 1845-46, 1849-50, and 1862. He 
also collated some specially important cursive MSS., and 
the Codex Amiatinus, supposed to be the oldest known 
MS. of the Latin Vulgate. In his edition of the Greek 
Testament, the text of the Vulgate is printed from this 
MS., the variations of the Clementine edition being given 
in the margin. For the Gospels, he collated twelve un- 
alg ἢ ἃ Et ΚΜ Ry Uy oe 2. ΙΑ and “the 
Gunsives: 1,33, 09; for the Acts, H, Lo (fomnerly G), andi, 
σι Το {π| Pauline Epistles, 0, ΕἸ Mii 7) 37) 473° ane 
the cursives 1 and 14 for the Apocalypse. He so marked 
the variations that he could produce a copy of every MS. 
that he collated, line for line; he also traced a page of each 
in fac-simile. It is very fortunate that all these uncials, 
with the exception of Z, the Dublin palimpsest, some parts 
of which Tregelles restored by a chemical application, were 
also collated independently by Tischendorf, and that Tisch- 
endorf and Tregelles compared their notes, taking pains in 
cases of discrepancy to ascertain the true reading by careful 
re-examination. 

Few persons are aware what sacrifices of time, labor, 
money, and health, were required for the work thus briefly 
described. Of pecuniary remuneration or even reimburse- 
ment there was no hope. The price of Dr. Tregelles’s 


178 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


proposed edition (three guineas) was such as to preclude 
an extensive sale, and the number of subscribers was 
very limited. The work of collating an ancient MS. de- 
mands, even under favorable circumstances, the closest at- 
tention and unbounded patience. Not to speak of palimp- 
sests, as R and Z, the difficulties presented by such a 
Ms..as D of the Pauline Epistles (Codex Claromon: 
tanus), with its numberless alterations by many later hands, 
all requiring to be carefully discriminated, can hardly be 
estimated. In the case of the very important cursive MS. 
numbered 33 in the Gospels, 13 in the Acts, 17 in the 
Pauline Epistles, which has been grievously injured by 
damp, Dr. Tregelles remarks : — 


In the Book of Acts, the leaves were so firmly stuck together that 
when they were separated the ink had adhered rather to the opposzte page 
than to its own; so that in many leaves the MS. can only be read by ob- 
serving how the ink has se¢ off (as would be said of a printed book), and 
thus reading the Greek words dackward. I thus obtained the reading of 
every line from many pages where zothing could be seen on the page 
itself. In some places where part of a leaf is wholly gone, from decay, 
the writing which was once on it can be read from the set off— Ac- 
count of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, p. 162. 


No wonder that Dr. Tregelles should speak of this MS. as 
wearisome to his eyes and “exhaustive of every faculty of 
attention.” 


One great object of Dr. Tregelles in visiting Rome, in 
1845, was to obtain the privilege of collating the famous 
Vatican MS. No. 1209 (B). His earnest efforts, however, 
were unsuccessful. He was tantalized by being often per- 
mitted to look at it, but was not allowed to transcribe any- 
thing; and, if he looked too long, the two fre/atz, he tells 
us, would snatch the book out of his hand. He was de- 
prived, of course, of the use of pen, ink, and paper ; but it is 
said that he contrived to note some important readings on 
his nails. 

The only MS. edited by Dr. Tregelles was the Codex 
Zacynthius, a palimpsest of great value, belonging to the 


THE LATE DR. TREGELLES 179 


Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society, in London, 
and containing about three hundred and forty-two verses of 
the Gospel of Luke. This was published in 186r. 

In the extent of his contributions to our stock of critical 
material, Dr. Tregelles was far surpassed by Tischendorf, 
who, in successive journeys to the East, secured rich MS. 
treasures, crowning all with the great discovery of the 
Codex Sinaiticus. Tischendorf’s editions of the texts of 
Biblical MSS. published by him for the first time, or for 
the first time accurately, comprise no less than seventeen 
large quarto and five folio volumes, not counting the Avec- 
dota Sacra et Profana and the WNotitza Codicis Sinattict. 
But Dr. Tregelles did much more than Tischendorf to illus- 
trate and enforce the principles on which a critical edition 
of the Greek Testament should be based, and to establish, 
by what he called “comparative criticism,” the right of a 
few of the oldest MSS. to outweigh a vast numerical ma- 
jority of later authorities. He did far more than any other 
writer to overcome the blind and unreasoning prejudice 
which existed in England in favor of the ¢ertus receptus, and 
which prized the inaccurate and uncritical edition of Scholz 
on account of its demerits. The change of opinion on this 
subject in conservative England within the last thirty years 
is marvellous, amounting almost to a revolution. The lan- 
guage indulged in by Bloomfield in the preface to his Greek 
Testament, about the “temerity’’ of Griesbach, and “his 
perpetual and, for the most part, needless cancellings and 
alterations of all kinds,’ would now sound very strange, 
unless perhaps from Dr. Burgon or some kindred spirit. 
Though the treatises of Prof. Porter and Dr. Davidson, the 
works of the Rev. T. S. Green, the articles of Prof. Westcott 
and Mr. Hort, and the later editions of Alford’s Greek Testa- 
ment have contributed to this result, yet to Dr. Tregelles 
the credit of effecting the change is pre-eminently due. His 
views were presented partly in his Look of Revelation, etc., 
already mentioned, partly in valuable articles in Kitto’s 
Journal of Sacred Literature, but most fully in his work 
entitled Az Account of the Printed Text of the Greck New 


180 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Testament, with Remarks on its Revision upon Critical 
Principles (London, 1854), and his Zxtroduction to the Text- 
ual Criticism of the New Testament, published, in 1856, 
as part of Vol. IV. of Horne’s Jutroduction, etc., tenth 
edition. These two volumes are far from being superseded 
by the later and valuable /utroduction of Dr. Scrivener, 
who represents a different school of criticism, fighting gal- 
lantly for the rights of the cursive MSS., to our better 
knowledge of which he has contributed so much. But the 
two last works of Dr. Scrivener, compared with his earlier 
writings, especially with his Supplement to the Authorized 
Version of the New Testament, published in 1845, will show 
how great progress even he has made under the influences 
to which I have referred. The reaction in favor of the 
few very ancient MSS. has, indeed, gone so far that there 
seems to be a tendency in certain quarters greatly to over- 
estimate the absolute authority of some of the oldest wit- 
nesses to the text, and to regard a reading supported by 
the Vatican MS. (B), with one or two of its usual allies, 
as something to be defended at all hazards. There is also 
a disposition to put aside all considerations of internal evi- 
dence, and to rest in what may be termed a purely diplo- 
matic text. Such a procedure will, undoubtedly, save an 
editor a deal of troublesome thinking, and a lovely appear- 
ance of consistency may be preserved ; but in every critical 
question we are bound to inquire what hypothesis will best 
explain all the phenomena. Every consideration which may 
bear on the matter should be fairly weighed. To shut ones 
eyes to internal evidence, or any other evidence, is simply 
arbitrary. 

After long delays, the First Part of Dr. Tregelles’s edition 
of the Greek Testament, containing the Gospels of Matthew 
and Mark, was issued in 1857; Part II. (Luke and John) in 
1861. Soon after the completion of this part, the over- 
tasked editor was visited by a stroke of paralysis, and was 
fora long time unable to resume his work. Parts III.-V., 
however, were issued in 1865, 1869, 1870; and Part VI. 
(Revelation), as has already been mentioned, in 1872. 


THE LATE DR. TREGELLES 181 


The preparations for this edition have been in part de- 
scribed above. It should be added that special pains was 
taken to exhibit accurately the readings of the most impor- 
tant ancient versions. For the A‘thiopic, Dr. Tregelles had 
the assistance of Mr. Prevost, of the British Museum, and, 
for the Armenian, of Dr. Rieu. The quotations of the ear- 
lier Christian Fathers were also carefully given from per- 
sonal examination. The edition is beautifully and accurately 
printed, and the clearness of arrangement leaves little or 
nothing to be desired. It has one decided advantage over 
that of Tischendorf:—several grades of probability in the 
case of different readings are indicated, a reading nearly 
equal in value to that in the text being placed in the mar- 
gin, etc. 

In the Gospels, Dr. Tregelles had not the benefit of the 
Sinaitic MS., or the accurate knowledge of the Vatican 
which we now possess through the labors of Tischendorf, 
Vercellone, and Cozza. In some other respects, his critical 
apparatus was less complete than that used for the last 
edition of Tischendorf, who, throughout the long-protracted 
issue of his eleven Lieferungzn (1864-72), enjoyed the 
great advantage of having the successive parts of Dr. 
Tregelles’s edition published in advance of his own. 

It is understood that Dr. Tregelles, before the complete 
deprivation of strength which marked ‘the later period of 
his illness, dictated notes for the Prolegomena of his Greek 
Testament, which, it is hoped, may erelong be published.* 

This great work of Dr. Tregelles will not meet all the 
demands of the critical student. It ignores a considerable 
portion, though not often a decisive portion, of the evidence 
for the various readings; but it is by far the most impor- 
tant original contribution which England has made in the 
present century to the establishment of a pure text of the 
Greek Testament. It is a monument of the most conscien- 
tious, disinterested, and arduous labor, prosecuted with 
indomitable perseverance and zeal, under discouraging cir- 


*[They appeared (enlarged by extracts from the writings of Dr. Tregelles) together with a 
copious collection of ‘‘Addenda and Corrigenda,” edited by Dr. Hort, in 1879, as Part VII. of 
the Greek Testament. ] 


182 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


cumstances, for a high end. The author has earned a title 
to the warmest gratitude of all who are interested in the 
study of the New Testament. 

We can only glance at the other publications of Dr. Tre- 
gelles. The most important of these is, perhaps, his edi- 
tion of the famous MWuratorian Canon, the earliest catalogue 
of the books of the New Testament, of which he published 
a fac-simile, with copious notes and critical discussions, 
Oxford, 1867, 4to. Other writings of his are: Remarks on 
the Prophetic Visions of the Book of Dantel (1847), with 
notes, and a Defence of its Authenticity, also issued sepa- 
rately (1852); Hustoric Evidence of the Authorship and 
Transmission of the Books of the New Testament (1852), 
a lecture; also, elaborate articles in Kitto’s Journal of Sacred 
Literature and the Cambridge Journal of Classical and Sa- 
cred Philology, some of which, as those on “The Original 
Language of Matthew’s Gospel” and “The Jansenists,’ were 
also published independently. He contributed to Smith's 
Dictionary of the Bible valuable articles on the ‘Ancient Ver- 
sions”; and, judging from internal evidence, the general arti- 
cles “Manuscripts” and ‘“Palimpsest” in Cassell’s Szble 
Dictionary, and the articles on particular MSS., as Alexan- 
drian, Augiensis, Bezae Codex, Claromontanus, Sinaiticus, 
Vaticanus, etc., in that work, are from his pen. 

Dr. Tregelles was a man of great simplicity of character 
and deep religious feeling, a devout believer in the plenary 
verbal inspiration of the Scriptures and in the doctrines 
usually denominated evangelical. For any form of ‘ration- 
alism”’ or any deviation from the doctrines which he re- 
garded as fundamental, he had no toleration. In translat- 
ing the Hebrew Lexicon of Gesenius, he accordingly deemed 
it his duty to insert many notes of warning against what he 
regarded as perverse and dangerous explanations of particu- 
lar passages by that eminent scholar; and, when the second 
volume of Horne’s /ztroduction, edited by Dr. Davidson, 
was issued, he published a solemn protest against its her- 
esies. Whether or not his zeal was always enlightened 
need not be discussed. It was honest, and not prompted 


THE LATE DR. TREGELLES 183 


by malevolence. His denunciations were uttered more in 
sorrow than in anger. 

The great merits and sacrifices of this self-denying 
scholar were not wholly unappreciated, though they surely 
deserved a wider and warmer recognition than they ever 
received. In 1850, the University of St. Andrew’s con- 
ferred upon him the degree of Doctor of Laws ; and, during 
the latter part of his life, he received from the civil list a 
pension amounting to £200 per annum. He was invited 
to become a member of the British committee for the revi- 
sion of the authorized English version of the Bible, though 
the failure of his health prevented him from taking part in 
the work. 

Dr. Tregelles leaves behind him a widow, the sympathiz- 
ing sharer of his labors, but no children. Rare, indeed, are 
the examples of such patient, unwearied, self-sacrificing devo- 
tion to a noble object as his life presents; and ever honored 
be his memory ! 


VII. 


GERHARD VON MASTRICEE: 


[From the Uzitariax Review for Auzust, 1884.] 


[THE extreme thoroughness and conscientiousness of Dr. 
Ezra Abbot, in even the smallest matters that came under 
his investigation, are in need of no illustration to those who 
were well acquainted with him. But those who know of 
that strong characteristic only by hearsay will be glad of 
an actual example. The following one is quite to the point, 
and, besides showing the trouble he habitually took to help 
his correspondents, is worthy of permanent record for its 
intrinsic interest. 

About a year ago, the writer’s correspondence with him 
—always pretty frequent— had to do with certain doubtful 
places in Dr. Eduard Reuss’s Szdlzotheca N. T. Graeci, and 
the correction of certain errors therein. Among them was 
the name by which Reuss designated the editor of a Greek 
Testament who is denoted on the title-page by the letters 
“G. D. T. M.D.” Every one conversant with the subject 
knows that the letters stand for “ Gerhardus de Trajecto 
Mosae Doctor’; and the question was whether the “de 
Trajecto Mosae’’ was a translation from the Dutch or Ger- 
man, and what was the shape of the name as the man used 
it himself. Reuss had indexed the name (in the genitive) 
simply as “Gerhardi.” Other late writers, the present 
writer among the number, knowing that the place “ Trajec- 
tum Mosae’”’ was the Dutch Maestricht, had taken the name 
to be “ Gerardus (or Gerard) van Maestricht.” 

Dr. Abbot’s final comment was as follows : — 


More than a dozen years ago, having charge of the cataloguing depart- 
ment in the library of Harvard College, I had occasion to investigate the 
proper form of the name, and came to the conclusion that it was Ger- 
hard von Mastricht. I have now renewed the investigation with the 


GERHARD VON MASTRICHT 185 


same result. The mistake (found in a very few recent writers) of giving 
the surname as Jaestricht, or of translating the ‘“ Gerhardus (07 Gerar- 
dus) de Trajecto Mosae” by “ Gerhard (or Gerard) von (97 van) Maes- 
tricht,” is easily explained by the fact that Maestricht is the old Dutch 
form of the name of the place, and also the form commonly found in 
English Gazetteers, and would therefore be naturally supposed to repre- 
sent the Zyvajectum Mosae. But this natural inference is false in the 
pesent case. and founded on ignorance of the history of the name. 

The grandfather of Gerhard von Mastricht was a Dutchman, residing 
in Maestricht. His family name was s’Coning (Paquot), or Scoxing 
(Moréri); his Christian name was Cornelius (that is, his name answered 
to the English ‘Cornelius King’). Being an ardent Protestant, fear of 
the terrible Duke of Alva compelled him to flee from his native city to 
Cologne, where he dropped his Dutch surname, assuming in its stead 
that ot von Mastricht (Mastricht being the common German form for the 
name of the city). This name was borne by his son, Thomas von Mas- 
tricht, and by his grandsons, Gerhard and Peter von Mastricht. The 
latter, after preaching for some years at Gliickstadt, became Professor of 
Hebrew at Frankfurt on the Oder, then (1669) Professor of Theology at 
Duisburg, and finally (1677) Professor of Theology at Utrecht, where he 
died in 1706. While at Utrecht, he published his most important 
works, particularly his Zeoretico-practica Theologia, under the name 
of Petrus vaz Mastricht. In most catalogues and biographical dic- 
tionaries, he accordingly appears under the name vaz Mastricht, as he 
naturally during his residence at Utrecht changed the German voz to 
van. But in none of the authorities have I ever found his surname 
given as Maestricht; all the Dutch biographies and bibliographies, 
Kok, Van der Aa, Kobus, Abkoude and Arrenburg, call him Petrus 
van Mastricht. This alone makes it improbable that his brother ever 
used the form Maestricht. 

But the case of Gerhard is much stronger. He never resided in 
Holland; he was always a German,— born at Cologne, Professor at 
Duisburg (1669), and afterward (1687-1721) Syndic of Bremen. There 
is not, I think, the slightest reason for believing that he ever spelled 
his name Maestricht, and very little for supposing that he ever used vaz 
for von, though the fact that his brother commonly goes by the name 
of van Mastricht has naturally led many to assume that his surname 
corresponded. (For the facts stated above, see Paquot, A/ém. pour ser- 
vir ἃ Uhist. lit. des dix-sept provinces des Pays-Bas, tome i. (Louvain, 
1765, fol.) p. 649 f.) 

The earliest authority for Maestricht that I have yet found is 
Horne’s Biblical Bibliography, appended to his Introduction. The 
only other writers in which I have seen it are Tregelles (Printed Text, 
pp. 73-75), who doubtless followed Horne, Westcott (art. New Testa- 
ment, in Smith’s Dict. οΥ the Bible, iii. 2134, note a, American edition), 


186 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


who also prohably copied Horne or Tregelles, and Reuss (Dre Gesch. 
a. heiligen Schriften Δ. pe ste Ausg. (1874), ὃ 407. end, where 1 con- 
ceive that the “v. Maestricht”’ is simply his translation of the de 776- 
jecto Mosae). He appears to have imagined that Maestricht was the 
birthplace or former residence of our Gerhard, for he calls him a δε, 
gtian (Biblioth., p. 133), which he was not and never was. He even 
treats his name as if it were a medieval one, like Adam of Bremen or 
Geoffrey of Monmouth or Peter of Clugny, putting him in his Index 
under Gerhard, which is as absurd as it would be to put Edmond de 
Pressensé’s name in an index under Edmond or Alexander von Hum- 
boldt’s under Alexander. In short, he appears to have known so little 
about the man that his authority is worthless. Gerhard, in fact, is 
much less known than his brother Peter; his name does not appear 
in the Biographie universelle or its Supplément, or in the Mouvelle 
Biographie générale (Hoefer), or in the great Dectionnaire universelle 
of Larousse, where you find almost everything. 

Scrivener is equivocal, giving “Gerhard ἃ Mastricht” (/u¢rod. 2d 
ed., p. 177) and “Gerhard ἃ Mastricht” (p. 400, and so in his Index). 
Davidson, 4107. Crit. ii., 122, has ‘“ Gerhard of Mastricht,” copying 
Marsh’s translation of Michaelis, but in his Index he has “ Gerhard 
of Maestricht.”’ 

The authorities on the other side are overwhelming in number, age, 
and weight. All the man’s contemporaries, all in fact who have written 
of him within a hundred years of his time, agree, so far as I can ascer- 
tain, in giving his surname as Mastricht. (It is possible that there 
is some exception in Dutch books; but I have found none.) 

Jac. Haseus, in the Bibliotheca historico-rhilologico-theologica pub- 
lished at BREMEN in 1718, Class I. Fasc. v. p. 691, while Von Mastricht 
was living, speaks of him in terms of the highest eulogy, and gives his 
name as “Gerh. von Mastricht.” Lilienthal, Zheologische Bibliothec 
(1741), p. 77, gives the title of the Catalogue of his Library as follows: 
“Catalogus Bibliothecae Gerh. von Mastricht, Syndici Bremensis, Li- 
brorum in quavis facultate insignium.... ΒΕΕΜ. i719. 8.” In the 
titles of two of his books, published at Duisburg in 1670 and 1677, as 
given by Paquot, his name appears as “‘Gerh. von Mastricht”; in that 
of another, Traj. ad Rhen. 1714, as “‘Gerardus von Mastricht.” So 
in the titles cited in Pérennés, Dict. de bibliog. catholique (1858), 1. 
col. 86 and III. col. go. the surname appears as “von Mastricht.” 
Accordingly, in the Bzb/cotheca realis juridica of Lipenius (1736), pp. 
233, 242, 306, his works appear under the name “Gerardus von Mas- 
tricht,” or ‘*Gerh. von Mastricht”’ in the Index, and so in Schott’s 
Supplement to this work (1775), p. 63. So in the General Catalogue 
of the Bodleian Library, and in the Catalogus dissertationum academt- 
carum belonging to that Library, his writings are entered under the 
heading “Mastricht, Gerh. von,” while those of his brother appear 


GERHARD VON MASTRICHT 187 


under “ Mastricht, Petrus van.” The same is’ true of the excellent 
Catalogue of the Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh, vol. v. (1877). In the 
Cat... . van godgeleerde Werken on sale by Frederick Muller at 
Amsterdam (1857), No. 3625, the “7252. juris ecclestastict appears under 
the heading “ Mastricht, G. von,” while his brother’s writings stand 
under “ Mastricht, P. van.” C. J. Stewart’s Catalogue of Bibles and 
Biblical Literature, London, 1849, No. 503, has “ Mastricht (G. von) 
de Canone Scripturae.... Bremae, 1722, Sm. 8vo.” In all probability 
he has given the name the form which he found on the title-page. 

Probably in no catalogue in the world is so much pains taken to 
secure accuracy in the representation of names as in the Manuscript 
Catalogue of the British Museum, select portions of which are now 
in course of publication. The portion extending from D to Dal, in 
explaining the zzztzalism “G. D. T. M. D.,” gives the name as “ἃ. von 
Mastricht.” 

In the notice of his death, in the Bibliotheca hist.-phil.-theol. Bremen, 
1721, iv. 1og1, his name appears as “ Gerhardus a Mastricht.” 

I cannot speak from personal inspection of the title-pages of the 
juridical or theological writings of this author; it is doubtful whether 
any of them are to be found in the libraries in this country; but such 
an agreement in the copying of the titles which comfazz his name in the 
works referred to above, corroborated by the form under which they are 
entered in the best catalogues, leaves no doubt in my mind that in the 
titles themselves the surname appears as ‘“ Von Mastricht.” 

This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that in nearly all of the 
numerous biographical and bibliographical works which I have con- 
sulted the surname is given as Aasiricht; generally with voz, less fre- 
quently, but often, with vaz, and in Latin works often with @ or de, as 
the translation of the prefix. 

So in the great general biographical or bibliographical works, as 
Zedler’s Univ. Lex. vol. xix. (1739), Georgi (1742), Jocher (1751), Moréri, 
Saxius’s Onomasticon (1785), Heinsius (1812), Rotermund, Fortsetzung 
zu Focher’s Gelehrten-Lex. vol. iv. (1813), Ebert, Graesse. Rotermund’s 
authority is the more weighty, as he published an elaborate work on the 
literati of Bremen. 

Soin many special bibliographical or biographical or miscellaneous 
works; as Acta Eruditorum, 1709, p. 35; J. A. Fabricius, 5261. Graeca 
(tom. iv., p. 845, ed. Harles); Joh. Fabricius, W7st. Bibl. Fabric. (1724), 
vi. 374; Reimman (1731); Bzbleothegue ratsonnée, etc. 1735, xv. 29; Baum- 
garten, (Vachrichten, u.s.w. iv. 207; Francke, Cat. Biblioth. Bunav. 
(1750), i. 12; Knoch (1754); Paquot (1765); Koecher, Analecta (1766); 
Bauer, Brblioth. libb. rar. (1771); Goeze, Verzetchniss (1777); Kok, Vader- 
landsch Woordenboek, vol. xxi. (1790); and Van der Aa, Biog. Woorden- 
boek der Nederlanden, vol. xii. (Kok and Van der Aa have no article 
upon him, as he was not a Dutchman; but they mention him in treating 
of his brother.) 


188 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


So in the special bibliographies of theological literature or some of 
its branches; as Buddeus, /sagoge (1730), Walch (1757-65), Masch’s Le 
Long (1778), Rosenmiiller (1797), Noesselt (4th ed., 1800), G. W. Meyer 
(1805), Simon (1813), Winer (3d ed., 1838-40), Danz (1843), Pérennés 
(1858). 

So various writers on textual criticism; as Bengel (1734) and Wet- 
stein (1735 and 1751), who call him “ Gerardus ἃ Mastricht”; C. B. 
Michaelis (De varr. lectt., 1749). Rumpzus (2d ed., 1757), Doedes, Tekst- 
kritick (1844). Griesbach (1777) has “ Mastrichtius.” 

So among the “ Introductions” to the N. T.; C. G. Hofmann in his 
edition of Pritius (1737 and 1764), and Kapp in his notes to the same; 
J. D. Michaelis (4th ed., 1787), Haenlein (2d ed., 1802), J. E. C. Schmidt 
(1805), Bertholdt (1812), Marsh (Lect. vii.), Hug (4th ed., 1847), Eich- 
horn (vol. v., 1827), Schott (1830), De Wette (6th ed., 1860), Guericke 
(3d ed., 1868). He does not appear to be mentioned by Bleek or Hil- 
genfeld. 

I fear I have been tedious; but, having looked up the matter as well 
as I could conveniently in my physical weakness, I thought I would give 
you the benefit of my memoranda. I have cited, I believe, about sixty 
authorities for Wastricht as the form of the surname. There is, I think, 
no evidence on the other side of any weight, no reason to suppose that 
our Gerhard, a German, ever wrote his name Gerardus or Gerard van 
Maestricht, much less “ Gerhard van Maestricht,” which is mixing up 
German and Dutch. It is a small matter; but were I in your place, 
unless you have the man’s autograph or something as decisive on the 
other side, I should request the printers to change vaz to von, and to 
strike out the 4 in Muaestricht. oe: Oe a 


ἍΠῚ: 


BUTIMANN’S GREEK TESTAMENT.* 


[From the Bibliotheca Sacra for October, 1858. ] 


TuIs edition of the Greek Testament forms a part of the 
popular collection of ancient Greek and Latin authors pub- 
lished by Teubner of Leipzig. Like the other volumes in 
the series, it is neatly printed, and sold at a moderate price. 
Its editor, Philip Buttmann, the son of the distinguished 
philologist of the same name, was associated with Lachmann 
in the preparation of his larger edition of the Greek Testa- 
ment: he arranged the authorities for the various readings 
of the Greek text. The edition which he now presents to 
the public purports to be based on the celebrated Codex 
Vaticanus No. 12009, except in the latter part of the Epistle 
to the Hebrews, the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Phile- 
mon, and the Apocalypse, in which portions of the New 
Testament that MS. is unfortunately mutilated. Here its 
place is supplied by the Alexandrine. Buttmann professes 
to give, in the margin, all the variations from his own text 
which are found in the Vatican MS., the Elzevir edition of 
1624, Oithem’ Received ‘Text, Guesbachs larger, edition 
(Vol. I. ed. Schulz, 1827; Vol. II., 1806), Lachmann’s larger 
edition (1842-50), and Tischendorf’s edition of 1854, included 
in his Movum Testamentum Triglottum, but also issued 
separately. 

One serious defect in the present work, considered as a 
manual for common use, is the absence of all references to 
the quotations from the Old Testament, or to parallel pas- 


* Novum Testantentum Graece. Ad fidem potissimym Codicis Vaticani B recensvit, varias 
lectiones Codicis B, Textvs Recepti, Editionvm Griesbachii Lachmanni Tischendorfii integras 
adiecit PHitippvs BvTTMANN. Lipsiae svmptibus et typis B. J. Tevbneri. 1856. Small 8vo. 
PP. Vill., 543- 


Igo CRITICAL ESSAYS 


sages in the New. Some may also regret that it has no 
analysis of the contents of the different books, in the form 
of running titles or headings of chapters. But, if the prom- 
ises of the title-page and preface were fulfilled, it would 
still be a convenient and useful book, supplying an impor- 
tant desideratum. No other edition gives a complete view 
of the critical results arrived at in respect to the text by 
Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, the three editors 
whose judgment is now most highly respected by scholars. 

The editions of Hahn (1840) and Theile (stereotyped in 
1844), and the edition of the New Testament in Stier 
and Theile’s Polyglotten-Bibel (stereotyped in 1846), profess, 
indeed, to exhibit the various readings of the principal 
recent editors of the Greek Testament; but they do this 
very imperfectly. In giving the readings of Griesbach, they 
take no notice of those which he marks as probably spurious, 
or of those which he designates as egza/ in authority to the 
reading of the text. Hahn preceded Tischendorf; and he 
professedly exhibits a selection cnly from the readings of 
Lachmann, taken of course from his first edition of 1831. 
He is, moreover, inaccurate, incorrectly representing the 
critical judgment of Knapp alone in more than one hun- 
dred and thirty instances. 

Theile intentionally passes over the minuter variations ; 
and both his Greek Testament and the Polyglotten-Bibel 
were published too soon to enable him to use the second 
volume of Lachmann’s larger edition, or the second Leipzig 
edition of Tischendorf (1849), the most important, so far as 
the criticism of the text is concerned, since the time of Gries- 
bach. (The first edition of Tischendorf, published in 1841, 
is comparatively of little value.) The Greek portion of 
Theile’s Movum Testamentum Tetraglotton (1855) is merely 
taken from the stereotype plates of the Polyglotten-Bibel. 

Tischendorf’s edition of 1849 gives the various readings 
of Griesbach, Scholz, and Lachmann, with those of the 
Elzevir edition of 1624 and Stephens’s of 1550; but he 
neglects the readings which Lachmann places in the margin 
as egual in value to those of the text; and Griesbach’s are 


ΒΌΤΥΜΑΝΝ 5 GREEK TESTAMENT ΙΟΙ 


taken from his larger editior, instead of the manual edition 
of 1805, which generally represents his later conclusions. 

Bagster’s Large-print Grezk Testament (London, 1851) 
contains only “selected various readings from Griesbach, 
Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf,” though the selection 
is copious, and made with care and judgment. 

Buttmann speaks in his preface of the difficulty of mak- 
ing a selection of this kind, and thinks it better to let the 
student decide for himself as to the comparative importance 
of particular differences in the text. He accordingly pro- 
fesses to give a// the various readings of the authorities 
named in his title-page, ““even the most trivial” (et Zevissz- 
mas). Where Griesbach and Lachmann regard two read- 
ings of the same passage as possessing equal claims to 
reception, he indicates the fact by citing their authority for 
both. Such are his promises; and the value of his work 
must chiefly depend on the fidelity with which they are 
performed. Few critics will doubt that he overestimates 
the authority of the Vatican MS., regarding it as equal, if 
not superior, to that of all the rest of our MSS. of the New 
Testament united. He even ventures, in one instance (2 
Pet. iii. 10), to alter the text by conjecture, changing 74 into 
a, because, otherwise, the reading of this MS. would be 
without meaning. Still, the Vatican MS. is undoubtedly 
the oldest and best which has come down to us; and, if 
Buttmann has relied upon it too exclusively, the error is 
not of much consequence, if he sets before us the text of 
Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf in connection with 
his own. 

Such being the case, we regret to say that all which 
would give value to this edition is wanting. No reliance 
can be placed on Buttmann’s account of the various read- 
ings of any one of the authorities cited. His carelessness 
is extraordinary. We have gone over the Gospel of 
Matthew, comparing the representations of Buttmann with 
the authorities to which he refers; and it appears that he 
has committed more than five hundred errors in that Gos- 
pel alone. These mistakes may be divided as follows: 


192 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


errors respecting the readings of the Received Text (the 
Elzevir edition of 1624), 136; errors respecting those of 
Griesbach’s edition, 250; respecting those of Lachmann’s 
edition, 47; respecting those of Tischendorf’s edition, 60; 
errors respecting the readings of the Vatican MS., not less 
than 47, and probably many more; in all, 540. It did not 
seem worth while to pursue the inquiry further ; but, at this 
rate; the number of mistakes in the whole volume would be 
not less than four thousand. 

It is true that many of the errors which we have noted 
relate to minute differences in the text, of little intrinsic im- 
portance ; but Buttmann, it will be remembered, professes to 
give αὐ the various readings of the authorities mentioned. 
It may be of no consequence whether Boé¢, or Bodc, or Boéc be 
the original reading in Matt. i. 5; but it is of some impor- 
tance as a test of Buttmann’s care as an editor, to know that 
he ascribes to Griesbach, Tischendorf, and the Received 
Text one of these forms, when they actually have another. 

A complete list of the errors referred to (in the Gospel of 
Matthew alone) would occupy a number of pages. The fol- 
lowing examples may suffice. 

1. The Elzevir edition of 1624 reads, Matt. 1. 5, Bod?, not Bode; 
lil. 15; εἶπε πρὸς αὐτόν, NOt εἶπεν αὐτῷ; 16, καὶ βαπτισϑείς, NOt βαπτισϑεὶς 
δέ; iv. ΤΙ, προσῆλϑον, not προσῆλϑαν (SO ix. 28; ΧΙ]. 36; xiv. 15); 
ν. 27, ἐῤῥέϑη, NOt ἐρρήϑη (SO Vv. 33, 38, 43); Same verse, adds 
τοῖς ἀρχαίοις after ἐῤῥέϑη; 30, βληϑῇ εἰς γέενναν, NOt εἰς γ. βλ.; Vil. ΦΡΣ 
προεφητεύσαμεν, NOt ἐπροφητεύσαμεν (Similarly xi. 13; XV. 7); Vill. 20, 
Ἰησοῦ υἱὲ not υἱέ simply ; 1X. 5, ἀφέωνται, NOt ἀφίενται; X. 41, λήψεται, 
not λήμψεται (so elsewhere); Xi. 23, ἔμειναν, not ἔμεινεν; Xi. 44, 
cecapwpévov, NOt καὶ σεσ.; Xlil. 6, ἐκαυματίσϑη, NOt ἐκαυματώϑη; 14, 
ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς, NOt αὐτοῖς simply ; 52, εἶπεν, not λέγει; xiv. 6, ἀγομένων, not 
γενομένων; 27, εὐθέως, not εὐϑύς (SO ΧΧΙ. 3); XVili. 4, ταπεινώσῃ, 
not -oe; XXill. 14, ὑποκριταί after Φαρισαῖοι; xxvi. 70 reads πάντων, 
Not αὐτῶν πάντων; XXVL, 47, ἑστώτων, NOt ἑστηκότων. In all but four 
Of ime places: (Matt. v. 27; vill. 29} καὶ 11: xxi. 7), the 
mistakes above specified apply equally to the account of 
Griesbach’s readings. We will therefore give only a few 
additional examples from him. 


BUTTMANN’S GREEK TESTAMENT 193 


2. Griesbach reads, Matt. i. 6, So%oudve, not -avra; ii, IT, 
εἶδον, NOt evpov; Vi, 32) ἐπιζητεῖ, NOt ἐπιζήτουσιν; Vill. 51. ἀπόστειλον ἡμᾶς, 
not ἐπίτρεψον ἡμῖν ἀπελϑεῖν; ix. 8, he marks ἐφοβήϑησαν as equal in 
authority to ἐθαύμασαν; xiii. 16 reads ἀκούει, not ἀκούουσιν ; marks 
Xvi. 11 and xxill. 14 as probably to be omitted. 

3. Lachmann reads, Matt. iv. 11, προσῆλϑον, not -ϑαν; vii. 25, 
προσέπαισαν, NOt mpocéreoav; 2s προσέρρηξαν, in the margin, as equal 
in authority to προσέκοψαν in the text; ΧΙ. 6, ἐκαυματίσϑη, not 
ἐκαυματώϑη; ΧΙν. 19, ηὐλόγησεν, NOt εὐλόγησεν; XVIII. 16, μετὰ σοῦ after 
δύο, not after παράλαβε; xxi, 3, εὐθέως, not εὐϑύς; xxiii. το, brackets 
μωροὶ καί. 

4. Tischendorf reads, Matt. ii. 22, ἐπὲ τῆς ᾿Τουδαίας, not τῆς ᾽Τουὸ. ; 
ἵν. 23, περιῆγεν, NOt π. ὁ Ἰησοῦς; ΧΙ, 16, ἑτέροις, NOt ἑταίροις; xiii. 48, 
ayyn, Not ἀγγεῖα; 52, εἶπεν, NOt λέγει; Xvl1. 8, ἐλάβετε, not ἔχετε; 28, 
εἰσίν, NOt ὅτι εἰσίν; XVIL. 4, ποιήσω, NOL -σωμεν; XVIII. I, ὥρᾳ, not ἡμέρᾳ ; 
ΧΧΙ. 18, ἐπαναγαγών, not ἐπανάγων; xxiii. 4, omits καὶ δυσβάστακτα. 

5. The Vatican MS. reads, Matt. i. 12, γεννᾷ, not ἐγέννησεν 
(twice); li. 13, adds εἰς τὴν χώραν αὐτῶν after αὐτῶν; iii, 16, 
πνεῦμα Θεοῦ, NOt τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ; iv. 23, OMits ὁ Ἰησοῦς after 
περιῆγεν; Vil. 19, reads πᾶν, not πᾶν οὖν (Lachmann is wrong) ; 
ΧΙ]. 47, omits the whole verse; 31, αὐτοῦ οἱ σύνδουλοι, not οἱ σ. ai. ; 
XX. 45, αὐτὸν κύριον καλεῖ, NOt καλεῖ αὐτὸν"κύριον; xxv. 06, ἐγένετο, not 
γέγονεν; XXVi. 56, adds αὐτοῦ after μαϑηταί. 

These specimens may be sufficient to determine the char- 
acter of the work; but one or two points require further 
elucidation. We refer to the use which the editor professes 
to make of the Vatican MS., and to the extraordinary num- 
ber of errors which he has committed in regard to the read- 
ings of Griesbach. 

It is on the Vatican MS. that Buttmann professedly founds 
his text ; but he nowhere informs his readers how imperfect 
our knowledge of that MS. is. We have, indeed, three col- 
lations of it: one by Bartolocci, in 1659; another by an Ital- 
ian named Mico, made for the use of Bentley, about 1720; 
and a third by Birch, toward the end of the last century. 
The two last have been published; a transcript of the first 
is preserved in the Imperial Library at Paris. These col- 
lations give us the reading of the MS. in a great many pas- 


194 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


sages; but it would be the height of rashness to attempt 
from them to publish its text. Sometimes they all disagree ; 
sometimes two of them differ, while the third is silent ; and 
a comparison of them demonstrates that much has been 
overlooked by the author of each. Important readings, 
which they have all neglected to notice, have been observed 
by Tischendorf and Tregelles, who have both had the priv- 
ilege of inspecting (not of collating) the MS. for a short 
time. The text which Buttmann gives as that of the Codex 
Vaticanus rests, in many places, only on the unsafe founda- 
tion of the silence of the collators. 

But this is not all. Buttmann has not even taken pains 
to examine any one of the collations personally ; but derives 
the readings of the MS. merely from Lachmann’s edition, 
except that he has made considerable use of an article by 
Tischendorf, in the Theol. Studien und Krittken for 1847, 
p. 129 ff. Tischendorf, in his edition of 1849, p. xlvi., points 
out a number of errors committed by Lachmann in respect 
to the readings of this MS.; but these errors are repeated 
by Buttmann. He also mentions (p. lvili.) two noticeable 
readings communicated by Dr. Tregelles; but this informa- 
tion is also lost upon our editor. Other mistakes of Butt- 
mann might have been corrected by examining the collation 
made for Bentley, printed by Ford in 1799, in his Appendix 
to Woide’s edition of the Coder Alexandrinus ; others still, 
from the article by Tischendorf, to which he refers. 

Discreditable as this negligence is, it is-more excusable 
than the misrepresentations of Griesbach’s critical judg- 
ment which constitute so large a part of the errors which 
we have noticed. Buttmann does not seem to have even 
made himself acquainted with the meaning of the signs 
which Griesbach uses to denote the comparative value of 
different readings. In the first place, Griesbach is repre- 
sented as receiving, without question, the readings which he 
marks as probably spurious, prefixing the sign =. There are 
not far from five hundred cases of this kind in the New Tes- 
tament, some of them of much importance. The passage 
concerning the woman taken in adultery (John vii. 53 to 


BUTTMANN’S GREEK TESTAMENT 195 


vill. 11) is a striking instance. In the Gospel of Matthew 
there are forty-five examples of this error on the part of 
Buttmann. 

There is another class of readings, to which Griesbach 
prefixes a peculiar mark (~*), denoting that they are worthy 
of consideration, but zzferior to those received into the text. 
Buttmann habitually confounds this with another mark (~), 
which signifies that the reading to which it is prefixed is 
equal or perhaps preferable to the received lection. Com- 
pare, for example, his edition with that of Griesbach in 
Matt. 1. 18, 19; 11 8,9, 17, etc. He has fallen into this mis- 
take, in the Gospel of Matthew, thirty-nine times. 

There is another smaller class of readings which Gries- 
bach introduces into the text with the sign + prefixed. 
These are given by Buttmann as readings which Griesbach 
adopts as genuine; whereas this sign, as explained by him, 
denotes an addition for which there is some evidence deserv- 
ing attention, but which is probably zo¢ genuine. See his 
Prolegomena (Schulz’s ed.), p. Ixxxvii. There are ten ex- 
amples of this error in the Gospel of Matthew; see, e.., 
ΝΠ συν 0, 33, 35, 38. 

One other remark may be made in this connection. Gries- 
bach’s readings should have been taken from his manual edi- 
tion, printed at Leipzig in 1805. Where this differs from 
his larger edition, it generally represents his maturer judg- 
ment. The first volume of the larger edition was published 
in 1796; and, though the second volume bears the date 1806, 
it appears by the preface that far the greater part of it had 
been printed several years before. The differences between 
the two editions, in respect to the text, are not very numer- 
ous; but some of them are important. For example, the 
last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark, to which Gries- 
bach affixes no mark of doubt in his larger edition of 1796, 
are designated as probably spurious ia the manual edition of 
1805 ; and he argues at length against their genuineness in 
Part II. of his Commentarius Criticus, published in 1811. It 
is obviously not doing him justice, to quote his authority, 
in such a case, in-support of the reading of the Received 
ext 


196 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


It is hardly worth while to point out misprints in a work 
of the character of the present. One or two of the grosser 
instances which we have observed may be mentioned, as 
μετα for μέστον, p. 246, line three from the bottom ; and τηρημένους 
for τηρουμένους, Ὁ. 342, line eight; and also in line two of the 
margin. 

It is unpleasant to be compelled thus to expose the faults 
of a work the editor of which bears so honored a name, and 
which forms part of a series that has been received with gen- 
eral favor. These very circumstances, however, being likely 
to give it a circulation to which it is not entitled, make ita 
more imperative duty to warn the unwary student against 
its false pretensions. 


ἜΧΕ 


WESTCOTT AND HORTS EDITION OF THE 
GREEK TESTAMENT. 


[From the Suaday School Times for Nov. 5, 1881.] 


Tus edition of the Greek Testament will mark an epoch 
in the history of New Testament criticism. Dr. Schaff 
accepts its text enthusiastically as “‘the oldest and purest” 
which has yet been published. Many in England, and still 
more, probably, in Germany, will heartily welcome it as a 
work bearing everywhere the stamp of independent, origi- 
nal research, and the most painstaking care. But, in some 
quarters, it cannot fail to encounter deadly hostility, and 
before its conclusions are generally adopted there will be 
much discussion. Though the work will now be more 
fairly judged than if it had been published twenty years 
ago, the charge of extreme rashness will doubtless be 
brought against the editors by such critics as Dean Burgon 
and the Rev. J. B. McClellan; and Dr. Scrivener, who had 
the use of their “provisional’’ text, has already, in the 
second edition of his Introduction (1874), strongly’ expressed 
his dissent from many of their conclusions. Even scholars 
who have become emancipated from the superstitious wor- 
ship of the so-called “ Received Text,” and who are ready to 
decide critical questions on purely critical principles, and 
not by their ‘infallible instincts,’ may be startled at the 
boldness of the editors in the use of the pruning-knife, 
which in their hands cuts deeper than even in those of 
Tischendorf and Tregelles. Westcott and Hort, for exam- 


*The New Testament in the Original Greek: the Text revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, 
D.D., Canon of Peterborough, and Regius Professor of Divinity, Cambridge, and Fenton John 
Anthony Hort, D.D., Hulsean Professor of Divinity, Cambridge. American Edition, with an 
Introduction by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. Crown 8vo. pp. xc., §80. New York: Harper ἃ 
Brothers. Price $2.00 


198 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


ple, regard as later additions to the text ‘not only the last 
twelve verses of Mark, the account of the descent of the 
angel into the pool of Bethesda (or “ Bethzatha,” as they 
read), and the story of the woman taken in adultery (John 
vii. 53 to viii. 11), but the passages noted in the margin of 
the Revised Version at Matt. xvi. 2, 3; Luke xxii. 19, 20, 
2, AA’ Xxili. 343 Xxiv. 3, Ὁ; 2, 30, 20, 1,552 5 and you 
iii. 13, as “omitted by some [or “‘many’”’] ancient authori- 
ties.” Other readings of theirs will seem to many, at first 
sight at least, very questionable. 

But the last charge which can be justly brought against 
the editors is that of rashness. They may have erred in 
judgment, but they have come to their conclusions with 
great deliberation. The history of the work entitles it, not, 
indeed, to immediate, unquestioning acceptance as final in 
its decisions, but to the most respectful consideration. It 
“was projected and commenced in 1853, and the work has 
never been laid more than partially aside in the interval, 
though it has suffered many delays and interruptions. The 
mode of procedure adopted by the editors from the first was 
to work out their results independently of each other, to 
hold no counsel together except upon results already pro- 
visionally obtained, and to discuss on paper the compara- 
tively few points of initial difference until either agreement 
or final difference was reached.” (Circular of the pub- 
lishers.) To this, it may be added that a large part of the 
text, the Gospels at least, appears to have been in type for 
more than ten years, during which period it has been re- 
vised and re-revised with great care, as deeper investigations 
have led the editors to modify here and there their earlier 
decisions. As to the character of the editors, none who 
are acquainted with the writings of Professor Westcott 
and Dr. Hort will question their eminent intellectual and 
moral qualifications for the task they have undertaken,— 
the great moral qualification, in studies such as these, 
being the single aim to ascertain the truth. 

It is important, however, to observe that the present 
volume exhibits oniy the vesw/ts of their critical investiga- 


WESTCOTT AND HORT’S GREEK TESTAMENT 199 


tions. It takes no notice of the text of any previous edi- 
tion, so that there is nothing to show the extent of its 
divergence from the so-called “ Received Text,” or of its 
agreement with the great critical editions of Tischendorf 
and Tregelles, with which, notwithstanding many differ- 
ences, it does agree in the main. There is no discussion 
of any reading, no statement of the authorities (MSS., etc.) 
which, in any questionable case, support the text. Alterna- 
tive readings, indeed, are given, where the editors regard 
the true reading as more or less uncertain; also, certain 
noteworthy rejected readings appear in the text in double 
brackets, or in the margin with certain marks; and at the 
end of the volume there is a list of still other rejected 
readings ‘which have been thought worthy of notice in the 
appendix [to the second volume] on account of some special 
interest attaching to them.” This list also includes a few 
passages in which the editors (or one of them) suspect 
“some primitive error,” and propose conjectural emenda- 
mons: But it- is. a mere list. There is also a very con- 
densed sketch (pp. 541-562) of the conclusions of the editors 
in regard to the true principles of criticism, the history of 
the text, the grouping of our chief documentary authorities 
in accordance with their peculiar characteristics, and the 
determination of the relative value of the several documents 
and groups of documents, in estimating which “the history 
and genealogy of textual transmission have been taken as 
the necessary foundation.” To this is subjoined a most 
appetizing and tantalizing summary of the contents of their 
elaborate “ Critical Introduction,” which, with an appendix, 
containing notes on select readings, notes on orthography, 
and a list of passages of the Old Testament quoted or 
alluded to, forms the second or accompanying volume of 
their work. This was announced more than a month ago in 
the Academy and elsewhere as to appear zmmediately, but 
does not seem as yet to have found its way across the 
Atlantic. 

It is this critical “Introduction” which will give the edi- 
tion of Westcott and Hort its distinctive value, and which, 


’ 


200 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


whether all their conclusions prove firmly established or not, 
will be most heartily welcomed by scholars, and cannot fail 
to contribute greatly to the advancement of New Testament 
criticism. They have undertaken a very difficult and deli- 
cate task; but their method is the true one. Some pioneer- 
ing had been done by Griesbach and others; but no such 
comprehensive and scientific investigation of the character 
and relative value of our external authorities for settling the 
text has been hitherto attempted. It is on this introduction 
that the whole structure of the editors rests; and any 
criticism of particular readings which they have adopted, 
should, in fairness, be reserved till the facts and reasonings 
on which their system of criticism is founded, have been 
carefully studied and weighed. 

To describe the four types of text, “the Western,” “the 
Alexandrian,” “the Neutral,” and ‘the Syrian” (earlier and 
later), which they find represented in our critical documents, 
would require more space than can here be allowed. It 
may be enough to say that the text which they designate 
as “neutral,” and regard as in general approximating most 
closely to the original autographs, is represented in its 
greatest purity by the Vatican MS. (B), to which they assign 
superlative value; the Sinaitic (δ) being, in their judgment, 
next in importance, but far less pure. But “with certain 
limited classes of exceptions, the readings of δὲ and B com- 
bined may safely be accepted as genuine in the absence of 
specially strong internal evidence to the contrary, and can 
never be safely rejected altogether” (p. 557). Nay, every 
combination of B with one other primary MS., as in the 
Gospels L, C, or T, “15 found to have a large proportion 
of readings, which on the closest scrutiny have the ring of 
genuineness, and hardly any that look suspicious after full 
consideration.” “Even when B stands alone, its readings 
must never be lightly rejected” (/dzd.). This estimate dif- 
fers somewhat from that of Professor T. R. Birks of Cam- 
bridge, who conceives himself to have proved by mathemat- 
ical calculations ‘‘that on the hypothesis most favourable 
to the early manuscripts, and specially to the Vatican, its 


WESTCOTT AND HORT’S GREEK TESTAMENT 201 


weight is exactly that of two manuscripts of the fifteenth 
century, while the Sinaitic weighs only one-third more than 
an average manuscript of the eleventh century.” (Zssay on 
the Right Estimation of Manuscript Evidence tin the Text of 
the New Testament, London, 1878, p. 66.) 

The present volume is issued in such a form that it may 
be used independently of the second; and it is apparently 
supposed that there will be some or many theological stu- 
dents whose want of a convenient manual edition will be 
met by this volume alone. It certainly is one which every 
theological student may well desire to possess, and should 
possess if possible; but the question may arise how far it 
will serve as his only edition. If he is ready to accept the 
conclusions of the editors without further inquiry or exami- 
nation of evidence, and without comparison with those of 
other critics, and if he does not care to have a text furnished 
with references to parallel or illustrative passages, or to the 
quotations from the Old Testament, this volume may be 
perfectly satisfactory. It is bzautifully printed, though the 
type is not large; the lines are well leaded; its form is con- 
venient; and it may be read with great delight. Indeed, 
there is no other existing edition of the Greek Testament 
in which so much is done to aid the mind of the reader by 
the form in which the matter is presented to the eye. The 
great natural divisions of the larger books are marked by a 
wide space, and by the printing of the initial words in capi- 
tals; the minor subdivisions, but such as comprise many 
paragraphs, are separated by a smaller space; the para- 
graphs, when they include a series of connected topics, as, 
for example, Matt. v. 17-48, are broken up by short but 
well-marked spaces into sub-paragraphs, as in Herbert Spen- 
cer’s writings,—a most excellent device, worthy of general 
introduction. ‘“Uncial type” isemployed for quotations 
from the Old Testament, and also to mark phrases bor- 
rowed from it; rhythmical passages, like Luke 1. 46-55, 68-- 
79, as well as poetical quotations from the Old Testament, 
are printed in a metrical form. The chapters and verses 
are numbered only in the margin. This som2times leaves 


202 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


uncertainty as to the beginning of a verse, in which case 
the doubt should have been removed by a little mark of 
separation. For one who wishes to give himself to the 
continuous reading of the Greek text with the least possible 
distraction, this edition has no rival. Harper & Brothers 
have rendered a great service to students of the New Testa- 
ment by their republication of it, from duplicate plates, at 
a moderate price. In a second issue the few misprints — 
such as ὡμῶν for ὑμῶν at the end of line three on page 23, and 
(probably) “ Posteriority” for ‘ Priority,” page 567, in the 
titles of the subsections to Section I. of Chapter II.— will 
doubtless be corrected. 

But no intelligent scholar, even though he may have 
other editions which will supply some of the deficiencies 
that have been mentioned, will be fully contented with the 
first volume alone. The second volume is really the basis 
of the first, and its necessary explanation; it is that by 
which the value of the editors’ work must be measured. It 
is therefore earnestly to be hoped that the enterprising 
American publishers will issue it as soon as possible in the 
same style as the first. It is no ephemeral production. 

A few words on Dr. Schaff's Introduction. After a brief 
but highly commendatory notice of the edition and the 
editors, we have, presented in a lively, popular style, an 
introduction, not so much to this particular edition as to the 
elements of textual criticism. It describes, in an interest- 
ing manner, the chief authorities for settling the text,— 
the most important ancient MSS., the principal ancient ver- 
sions, and the quotations by the early Christian Fathers ; 
treats of the various readings, their origin, number, impor- 
tance, and the principles of criticism; and gives a good 
account of the most important printed editions of the Greek 
text, ranged under three “periods.” The ancient MSS. are 
illustrated by five fac-similes. In general, the information 
given is well brought down to the present time, and many 
minor errors of Scrivener and other writers are corrected. 
The account of ancient MSS., versions, etc., will not greatly 
facilitate the use of this volume, as these documents are 


WESTCOTT AND HORT’S GREEK TESTAMENT 203 


never cited in it for or against any particular reading. Oc- 
casional oversights may be found; for example, on page 
xlvili., Bernhardt’s edition of the Gothic version is said to be 
“provided,” like that of Gabelentz and Loebe, “with a com- 
plete apparatus.” That is emphatically true of the latter; 
but the former lacks the important accompaniments of a 
grammar and lexicon. On the same page, in speaking of 
the edition of the Gospel of Mark in Gothic, with a gram- 
matical commentary by Dr. R. Miller and Dr. H. Hoeppe 
(eat). “Wuller” is misprinted) “Miller”, Wee should: be 
added that the little work referred to is not only inaccu- 
rately printed, but that the grammatical notes are disfigured 
by extraordinary mistakes. In treating of the Peshito or 
Peshitto Syriac, it would have been well, perhaps, to have 
mentioned the edition of Leusden and Schaaf, since, with 
all its faults, it is so helpful to the student through the 
copious Lexicon (almost Concordance) which accompanies 
it, and its Latin translation. 


XS 


THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK Tex 


[Originaily printed in the ‘‘ Bible Revision Number” of the Sunday School World for 
October, 1878. ] 


Ir is an unquestionable fact that the Greek text of the 
New Testament from which our common English version 
was made contains many hundreds of errors which have af- 
fected the translation ; and that in some cases whole verses, 
or even longer passages, in the common English Bible, are 
spurious. This fact alone is sufficient to justify the demand 
for such a revision of the common version as shall remove 
these corruptions. Why, when so much pains is taken to 
obtain as correct a text as possible of ancient classical 
authors,— of Homer, Plato, or Thucydides,— should we be 
content with a text of the New Testament formed from a 
few modern MSS. in the infancy of criticism, when our 
means of improving it are now increased a hundred-fold? 
Why should the mere mistakes of transcribers still be im- 
posed upon unlearned readers as the words of evangelists 
and apostles, or even of our Lord himself ? 

The statements that have just been made require illustra- 
tion and explanation, in order that the importance of these 
errors of the Received Text may not be exaggerated on the 
one hand or underestimated on the other. We will con- 
sider, then :— 

1. The nature and extent of the differences of text in the 
Greck MSS. of the New Testament. The MSS. of the 
New Testament, like those of all other ancient writings, 
differ from one another in some readings of considerable 
interest and importance, and in a multitude of unimportant 
particulars, such as the spelling of certain words; the order 
of the words; the addition or omission of particles not 


THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT 205 


affecting, or only slightly affecting, the sense; the insertion 
of words that would otherwise be understood; the sub- 
stitution of a word or phrase for another synonymous with 
it; the use of different tenses of the same verb, or different 
cases of the same noun, where the variation is immaterial ; 
and other points of no more consequence. The various 
readings which are comparatively important as affecting the 
sense consist for the most part: (1) of the swbstitution of 
one word for another that closely resembles it in spelling or 
in pronunciation; (2) the omdsszon of a clause or longer 
passage from om«oteleuton,— that 15, the fact that it ends 
with the same word or the same series of syllables as the 
one preceding it; and (3) the addition to the text of words 
which were originally written as a marginal note or gloss, 
or are supplied from a parallel passage. Ancient scribes, 
like modern printers, when very knowing, have often made 
mistakes while they thought they were correcting them; 
but there is little or no ground for believing that the text 
of the New Testament has suffered in any place from 
wilful corruption. 

The state of the case will be made plainer by specific 
examples. The great majority of questions about the 
readings, so far as they affect the translation, are such as 
these: whether we should read “Jesus Christ” or “Christ 
iesus?; “the disciples” or “hus disciples” ; ‘‘and”’ for 
“but” or “now,” and wice versa; “Jesus said? or “he 
said”; “he said” or “he saith” or “he answered and said”’ ; 
whether we should add or omit “and” or “but” or “for” 
or “therefore,” the sense not being affected; whether we 
should read “God” or “Lord”’ or “ Christ,” in such phrases 
“πε word of God,” or “of the Mond)” or “of Christ,” — 
these three words differing, as abbreviated in the Greek 
MSS., by only a single letter. Of the more important 
various readings, much the larger part consists of spurious 
additions to the text, not fraudulent, but originally written 
as marginal or interlinear notes, and afterwards taken into 
the text by a very common and natural mistake. Most of 
these occur in the Gospels. For instance, ‘‘bless them that 


206 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


curse you, do good to them that hate you,” is probably not 
genuine in Matt. v. 44, but was borrowed from the parallel 
passage in Luke vi. 27, 28. So the words “to repentance”’ 
are wanting in the best MSS. in Matt. ix. 13 and Mark ii. 
17, but were introduced into later copies from Luke v. 32. 
For an example of omission from homeoteleuton, we may 
refer to 1 John ii. 23, where in our English Bibles the last 
clause of the verse is printed in italics as of doubtful gen- 
uineness. It is unquestionably genuine; how it was acci- 
dentally omitted in some MSS. will be seen if we under- 
stand that in the original the order of the words is as 
follows: “he that acknowledgeth the Son hath also the 
Father,” the ending being the same as that of the preceding 
clause. The copyist, glancing at the ending of the second 
clause, supposed he had written it, when in fact he had 
only written the first. For an example of the swdstztution of 
a word for another resembling it in spelling, we may take 
Rev. i. 5, where for “washed us” (λούσαντι) the best MSS. 
read “loosed” or “released us” (λύσαντ). For another, see 
the margin of the common version, Acts xiii. 18. 

I will now give as full an account as is possible within 
moderate limits of the more important and remarkable 
various readings, that every one may see for himself to how 
much they amount. 

The longer passages of which the genuineness is more or 
less questionable are the doxology in the Lord’s Prayer, 
Matt. vi. 13; Matt. xvi: 2, 3) from: ‘when’ to “times 
(most critics retain the words) ; xvii. 21; xviii. 11; xx. 16, 
last part (genuine in xxii. 14); xxi. 443 xxiii. 143 xxvii. 35 
(from “that it might be fulfilled” to “lots’’); Mark vi. 11, 
Jast Sentence; vil. 16; ix. 44, 463 xi. 26; xv. 28: xvi. 9-20 
(a peculiar and rather difficult question) ; Luke ix. 55, 56, 
iam and “said” to “save them’ xvii, 26. κε. ae 
(most critics retain the passage) ; xxiii. 17, 34, first sentence 
(most critics retain it); xxiv. 12, 40; John v. 3, 4, from 
“waiting” to “he had” (most critics reject this); vii. 53 
to vill. 11 (also rejected by most critics); xxi. 25 (retained 
by most critics); Acts viii. 37; ix.'5, 6, from “it is hard” 


THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT 207 


to “unto him” (has no MS. authority: compare xxvi. 14; 
TO) > XV. 34; Χχίν Ὁ ὃ. from: “and would’ to. “unto 
thee; "5 xxviii. 29; Rom. Χὶ Ὁ, second sentence; xvi. 24; 
I John v. 7, 8, from ‘in heaven” to “in earth,” inclusive 
(the famous text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, now 
rejected by common consent of scholars as an interpolation). 
Most of the questionable additions in the Gospels, it will 
be seen on examination, are from parallel passages, where 
the words are genuine; the doxology in the Lord’s Prayer 
probably came in from the ancient liturgies (compare 1 
Chron. xxix. 11); the passage about the woman taken in 
adultery, and some other additions, especially Luke ix. 55, 
56, xxiii. 34 (if this is not genuine), are from early and 
probably authentic tradition. 

Of questions relating to particular words or phrases, the 
following are some of the more interesting and important: 
whether we should read. in Matt: 1. 25 “a son” or “her 
fEst-porm-son.’ (compare: Luke ai, (7); viol, “alms ion 
mehteousness’’; xi. 10, “children” on “works”; xixv16) 
ie Good WNeacher,” and .“callest thow me; goed. ὧν 
“Teacher,” and “askest thou me concerning what is good”; 
Mark i. 2, “in the prophets” or “in Isaiah the prophet” ; 
io 23, it thou ‘canst believe,’ or simply, “It thou canst!” 
Luke ii. 14, “good will to (or among) men” or “among 
men of good will” (the latter expression meaning, probably, 
“men to whom God hath shown favor’); iv. 44, “ Galilee” 
On γε Π|||56 ἢ 5 XIV, 5, “an. 855 or δ oxi ΟἿ a som om an 
Ox’; xxiii. 15, “I sent you to him” or “he sent him back 
to us” ; xxiv. 51, omit ‘and was carried up into heaven”; 
John 1. 18, read ‘the only begotten Son”’ or “only begotten 
God” (the words for “Son” and “God” differ in but a 
stnele letter in the old, MSS.); ii τ omit which is in 
heaven” (most critics retain the clause) ; vii. 8, read “not 
... yet” or “not”; xiv. 14, “‘ask anything in my name” 
ὉΠ ἡ πεῖς Οἱ Τ᾽ anything, in my ΗΘ: Acts xi, 20. 
Greeks: -or) ‘ Hellenists|:>) svi seene: Spint ’ or “the 
Spimt of 16 518; xx) 28, Stherchureiwor God’ .or. “the 
church of the Lord”; Rom. xiv. 10, “the judgment seat of 


208 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Christ” or “the judgment seat of God” ; 1 Cor. x. 9, “tempt 
Chrst wor “tempt the’ Lord” 5 xin, 3,.\“to-be: burned” or 
‘that l may glory”; xv. 47, omit |“the ΠΕ ΤΠ, Eph. 11 Ὁ 
omit “by Jesus Christ”; v. 9, read ‘the fruit of the Spirit” 
or, “the fruit of the light”; Col. 11..2,“‘the mystery of God” 
or “the mystery of God, Christ” (compare i. 27: there are 
several other readings); 1 Tim. ili. 16, “(σα was manifest” 
or “who (or ‘“ He who”) was manifest” (manifested) ; τ Pet. 
mir, 86 Lord God” or “thes Lord ΘΠ τι om irashes 
‘Christ as, Lord’; Jude 25, “the only wise Godeous 
Saviour” or ‘the only God our Saviour, through Jesus 
Christ our TLord?’; Rev. τ ὃ; “the Lord” of ““thesigeae 
God’; xx, τ “that odo his ‘commandments?’ or “thag 
wash their robes.” 

I have sufficiently illustrated the nature of the differences 
in the text of the New Testament MSS.: we will now con- 
sider their extent and importance. The umber of the 
“various readings” frightens som2 innocent people, and 
figures largely in the writings of the more ignorant dis- 
believers in Christianity. “One hundred and fifty thousand 
various readings’’! Must not these render the text of the 
New Testament wholly uncertain, and thus destroy the 
foundation of our faith? 

The true state of the case is something like this. Of the 
one hundred and fifty thousand various readings, more or 
less, of the text of the Greek New Testament, we may, as 
Mr. Norton has remarked, dismiss nineteen-twentieths from 
consideration at once, as being obviously of such a charac- 
ter, or supported by so little authority, that no critic would 
regard them as having any claim to reception. This leaves, 
we will say, seven thousand five hundred. But of these, 
again, it will appear, on examination, that nineteen out of 
twenty are of no sort of consequence as affecting the sense ; 
they relate to questions of orthography, or grammatical 
construction, or the order of words, or such other matters 
as have been mentioned above, in speaking of unimportant 
variations. They concern only the form of expression, not 
the essential meaning. This reduces the number to per- 


THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT 209 


haps four hundred which involve a difference of meaning, 
often very slight, or the omission or addition of a few words, 
sufficient to render them objects of some curiosity and inter- 
est, while a few exceptional cases among them may rela- 
tively be called important. But our critical helps are now 
so abundant that in a very large majority of these more 
important questions of reading we are able to determine 
the true text with a good degree of confidence. What re- 
mains doubtful we can afford to leave doubtful. In the 
text of all ancient writings, there are passages in which the 
text cannot be settled with certainty ; and the same is true 
of the interpretation. 

I have referred above to all, or nearly all, of the cases in 
which the genuineness of a whole verse or more is question- 
able; and I have given the most remarkable of the other 
readings of interest which present rival claims to acceptance. 
Their importance may be somewhat differently estimated 
by different persons. But it may be safely said that no 
Christian doctrine or duty rests on those portions of the 
text which are affected by differences in the MSS.; still 
less is anything essenutzal in Christianity touched by the 
various readings. They do, to be sure, affect the bearing 
of a few passages on the doctrine of the Trinity; but the 
truth or falsity of the doctrine by no means depends upon 
the reading of those passages. 

The number of the various readings which have been 
collected from more than five hundred MSS., more than a 
dozen ancient versions, and from the quotations in the writ- 
ings of more than a hundred Christian Fathers, only attests 
the exuberance of our critical resources which enable us now 
to settle the true text of the New Testament with a confi- 
dence and precision which are wholly unattainable in the 
case of the text of any Greek or Latin classical author. [| 
say, enable us zow to do this; for, in the time of our trans- 
lators of 1611, only a small fraction of our present critical 
helps was available. This leads us to consider -- 

2. The imperfection of the Greek text on which our common 
English version of the New Testament ts founded. The prin- 


210 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


cipal editions of the Greek Testament which influenced, 
directly or indirectly, the text of the common version are 
those of Erasmus, five in number (1516-35); Robert Ste- 
phens (Estienne, Stephanus), of Paris and Geneva, four 
editions (1546-51); Beza, four editions in folio (1565-08), 
and five smaller editions (1565-1604) ; and the Compluten- 
sian Polyglott (1514, published in 1522). Without enter- 
ing into minute details, it is enough to say that all these 
editions were founded on a small number of inferior and 
comparatively modern MSS., very imperfectly collated ; and 
that they consequently contain a multitude of errors, which 
a comparison with older and better copies has since enabled 
us to discover and correct. It is true that Erasmus had one 
valuable MS. of the Gospels, and Stephens two (D and L); 
Beza had also D of the Gospels and Acts, and D (the Cler- 
mont MS.) of the Pauline Epistles; but they made scarcely 
any use of them. The text of the common version appears 
to agree more nearly with that of the later editions of Beza 
than with any other; but Beza followed very closely Robert 
Stephens’s edition of 1550, and Stephens’s again was little 
more than a reprint of the fourth edition of Erasmus (1527). 
Erasmus used as the basis of his text an inferior MS. of the 
fifteenth century, except in the Revelation, where he had 
only an inaccurate transcript of a mutilated MS. (wanting 
the last six verses) of little value, the real and supposed 
defects of which he supplied by ¢vanslating from the Latin 
Vulgate into Greek. Besides this, he had in all, for his 
later editions, three MSS. of the Gospels, and four of the 
Acts and Epistles; the text of the Aldine edition of 1518, 
and of the Complutensian Polyglott. In select passages, he 
had also collations of some other MSS. _ The result of the 
whole is that in a considerable number of cases, not, to be 
sure, of great importance, the reading of the common Eng- 
lish version is supported by zo known Greek MS. whatever, 
but rests on an error of Erasmus or Beza (e.g., Acts ix. 5, 6; 
Rom, wii. 6; 1 Pet. iii.: 20; Rev, 1 Ὁ; τὰς 1-33.20) 24 ae 
2 1. TAs KV. 35 XVI. ὃ νι BALO} Xvid, 27 etey ame 
it is safe to say that in more than a ¢housand instances 


THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT 211 


fidelity to the true text now ascertained requires a change 
in the common version, though in most cases the change 
would be slight. But granting that not many of the 
changes required can be called important, in the case of 
writings so precious as those of the New Testament every 
one must feel a strong desire to have the text freed as far 
as possible from later accretions, and restored to its primi- 
tive purity. Such being the need, we will next consider ---- 

3. Our present resources for settling the text. Our MS. 
materials for the correction of the text are far superior, 
both in point of number and antiquity, to those which we 
possess in the case of any ancient Greek classical author, 
with the exception, as regards antiquity, of a few fragments, 
as those of Philodemus, preserved in the Herculanean 
papyri. The cases are very few in which any MSS. of 
Greek classical authors have been found older than the 
ninth or tenth century. The oldest MS. of A%schylus and 
Sophocles, that from which all the others are believed to 
have been copied, directly or indirectly, is of the tenth or 
eleventh century; the oldest MS. of Euripides is of the 
twelfth. For the New Testament, on the other hand, we 
have MSS. more or less complete, written in uncial or 
capital letters, and ranging from the fourth to the tenth 
century, of the Gospels twenty-eight, besides twenty-nine 
small fragments; of the Acts and Catholic Epistles ten, 
besides six small fragments; of the Pauline Epistles eleven, 
besides nine small fragments; and of the Revelation five. 
All of these have been most thoroughly collated, and the 
text of the most important of them has been published. 
One of these MSS., the Sinaitic, containing the whole of the 
New Testament, and another, the Vatican (B), containing 
much the larger part of it, were written as early, probably, 
as the middle of the fourth century; two others, the Alex- 
andrine (A) and the Ephraem (C), belong to about the middle 
of the fifth; of which date are two more (Ὁ and T), contain- 
ing considerable portions of the Gospels. A very remark- 
able MS. of the Gospels and Acts, the Cambridge MS. or 
Codex Bezae, belongs to the sixth century, as do E of the 


2.12 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Acts and D of the Pauline Epistles, also N, P, R, Z, of the 
Gospels and H of the Epistles (fragmentary). I pass by 
a number of small but valuable fragments of the fifth and 
sixth centuries. As to the cursive MSS., ranging from the 
tenth century to the sixteenth, we have of the Gospels more 
than six hundred; of the Acts over two hundred; of the 
Pauline Epistles nearly three hundred; of the Revelation 
more than one hundred,— not reckoning the Lectionaries or 
MSS. containing the lessons from the Gospels, Acts, and 
Epistles read in the service of the church, of which there 
are more than four hundred. Of these cursive MSS. it is 
true that the great majority are of comparatively small 
value; and many have been imperfectly collated or only 
inspected. Some twenty or thirty of them, however, are 
of exceptional value—a few of very great value —for their 
agreement with the most ancient authorities. 

But this is only a part of our critical materials. The 
translations of the New Testament, made at an early date 
for the benefit of Christian converts ignorant of Greek, and 
the very numerous gvotations by a series of writers from 
the second century onwards, represent the text current in 
widely separated regions of the Christian world, and are 
often of the highest importance in determining questions 
of reading. Many of these authorities go back to a date 
one or two centuries earlier than our oldest MSS. Of the 
ancient versions, the Old Latin and the Curetonian Syriac 
belong to the second century; the two Egyptian versions, 
the Coptic or Memphitic and the Sahidic or Thebaic, prob- 
ably to the earlier part of the third; the Peshito Syriac in 
its present form perhaps to the beginning of the fourth; 
in the latter part of the same century, we have the Gothic 
and the Latin Vulgate, and perhaps the Aethiopic; in the 
fifth century, the Armenian and the Jerusalem Syriac; and, 
in the sixth, the Philoxenian Syriac, revised by Thomas of 
Harkel, A.p. 616; to say nothing of several later versions. 

Since the beginning of the present century, thoroughly 
critical editions of the Greek Testament have been pub- 
lished by such scholars as Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischen- 


THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT 213 


dorf, and Tregelles, in which the rich materials collected 
by generations of scholars have been used for the improve- 
ment of the text; we have learned how to estimate the 
comparative value of our authorities; the principles of text- 
ual criticism have been in a good measure settled; the more 
important questions in regard to the text have been dis- 
cussed, and there has been a steadily growing agreement of 
the ablest critics in regard to them. 

With this view of what has been done in the way of 
preparation, we will consider, finally :— 

4. The ground for expecting a great improvement in the text 
from the work now undertaken by the British and American 
Revision Committees. On this little needs now to be said. 
We have seen that the text from which the common Eng- 
lish version was made contains many known errors, and 
that our present means of correcting it are ample. The 
work of revision is in the hands of a body of the best Chris- 
tian scholars in England and America, and their duty to 
the Christian public is plain. The composition of the Com- 
mittees, and the rules which they follow, are such that we 
may be sure that changes will not be made rashly; on the 
other hand, we may be confident that the work will be done 
honestly and faithfully. When an important reading is 
clearly a mistake of copyists, it will be fearlessly discarded; 
when it is doubtful, the doubtfulness will be noted in the 
margin; and the common English reader will at last have 
the benefit of the devoted labors of such scholars as Mill, 
Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and 
Tregelles, who have contributed so much to the restoration 
of the text of the New Testament to its original purity. On 
the English Committee itself there are. at least three men 
who deserve to be ranked with those I have named: Pro- 
fessor Westcott and Dr. Hort, two of the best scholars that 
England has produced, who have given more than twenty 
years to the preparation of a critical edition of the Greek 
Testament; and Dr. Scrivener, whose labors in the colla- 
tion and publication of important MSS. have earned the 
gratitude of all Biblical scholars. Professor Lightfoot is 


214 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


another scholar of the highest eminence who has given 
much attention to the subject of textual criticism. We 
may rely upon it that such men as these, and such men 
as constitute the American Committee, whom I need not 
name, will not act hastily in a matter like this, and will not, 
on the other hand, ‘handle the word of God deceitfully,” or 
suffer it to be adulterated through a weak and short-sighted 
timidity. 

One remark may be added. All statements about the 
action of the Revision Committee in regard to any particu- 
lar passage are wholly premature and unauthorized, for this 
reason, if for no other, that their work is not yet ended. 
When the result of their labors shall be published, it will 
be strange if it does not meet with some ignorant and 
bigoted criticism; but I feel sure that all intelligent and 
fair-minded scholars will emphatically indorse the judgment 
of Dr. Westcott, expressed in the Preface to the second 
edition of his History of the English Bible (1872), “that in 
no parallel case have the readings of the original texts to 
be translated been discussed and determined with equal 
care, thoroughness, and candor.” 

As regards the text of the Old Testament, the MSS. col- 
lated in the last century by Kennicott and De’ Rossi all 
fall within the Masoretic period, and present for the most 
part only trivial variations. In general, our means of cor- 
recting the Hebrew text followed by our translators are 
very far inferior to those which we possess in the case of 
the Greek text of the New Testament, and but few changes 
on this ground are to be expected in the revised translation 
of the canonical books. 


XI. 


bie) GOSPELS ΙΝ TAE NEW (REVISION. 


[Originally printed as three articles in the Sunday School Times for May 28, June 4, and 
June rr, 1881. ] 


A VERY important part of the work of the new revision 
has consisted in the settlement of the Greek text to be 
followed in the translation. This was a duty which could 
not be evaded. To undertake to correct merely the mis- 
translations in the common English version, without refer- 
ence to the question of the genuineness of the text, would 
be equivalent to saying that, while the mistakes of transla- 
tors must be rectified, those of transcribers and editors 
should be regarded as sacred. It would be deliberately im- 
posing on the Christian public hundreds of readings which 
all intelligent scholars, on the ground of decisive evidence, 
now agree in rejecting as spurious. 

That there should be many mistakes in our MSS. of the 
Greek New Testament, as there are in all other MSS. of 
ancient authors, and that a portion of these mistakes should 
be capable of correction only by the comparison of many 
different copies, was inevitable in the nature of things, 
unless a perpetual miracle should be wrought. That such 
a miracle has not been wrought is shown by the multitude 
of ‘various readings” which a comparison of copies has 
actually brought to light, the number of which was roughly 
reckoned at thirty thousand in the days of Mill (1707), and 
may now be estimated at not fewer than one hundred 
thousand. 

This host of various readings may startle one who is 
not acquainted with the subject, and he may imagine that 
the whole text of the New Testament is thus rendered 
uncertain. But a careful analysis will show that nineteen- 


216 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


twentieths of these are of no more consequence than the 
palpable errata in the first proof of a modern printer; they 
have so little authority, or are so manifestly false, that they 
may be at once dismissed from consideration. Of those 
which remain, probably nine-tenths are of no importance as 
regards the sense; the differences either cannot be repre- 
sented in a translation, or affect the form of expression 
merely, not the essential meaning of the sentence. Though 
the corrections made by the revisers in the Greek text of 
the New Testament followed by our translators probably ex- 
ceed two thousand, hardly one-tenth of them, perhaps not 
one-twentieth, will be noticed by the ordinary reader. Of 
the small residue, many are indeed of sufficient interest and 
importance to constitute one of the strongest reasons for 
making a new revision, which should no longer suffer the 
known errors of copyists to take the place of the words 
of the evangelists and apostles. But the chief value of 
the work accomplished by the self-denying scholars who 
have spent so much time and labor in the search for MSS., 
and in their collation or publication, does not consist, after 
all, in the corrections of the text which have resulted from 
their researches. These corrections may affect a few of 
the passages which have been relied on for the support of 
certain doctrines, but not to such an extent as essentially 
to alter the state of the question. Still less is any ques- 
tion of Christian duty touched by the multitude of various 
readings. The greatest service which the scholars who 
have devoted themselves to critical studies and the collec- 
tion of critical materials have rendered, has been the estab- 
lishment of the fact that, on the whole, the New Testament 
writings have come down to us in a text remarkably free 
from important corruptions, even in the late and inferior 
MSS. on which the so-called “ Received Text” was founded ; 
while the helps which we now possess for restoring it to 
its primitive purity far exceed those which we enjoy in the 
case of any important classical author whose works have 
come down to us. The multitude of ‘various readings,” 
which to the thoughtless or ignorant seems so alarming, is 


THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION 217 


simply the result of the extraordinary richness and variety 
of our critical resources. 

At this point, it may be well to illustrate, by a brief state- 
ment, the difference between the position of the present 
revisers and King James’s translators two hundred and 
seventy years ago, as regards a critical knowledge of the 
iareck text of the New Testament.’ The translators or 
revisers of 1611 followed strictly no one edition of the 
Greek Testament, though their revision seems to agree more 
closely, on the whole, with Beza’s later editions (1588 and 
1598) than with any other. But Beza’s various editions 
(1565-98, folio, 1565-1604, 8vo) were founded mainly on 
Robert Stephens’s editions of 1550 and 1551. For those 
editions Stephens had a very imperfect collation of fifteen 
MSS. from the Royal Library at Paris, and of the Complu- 
tensian Polyglott, whose readings were given in his margin. 
Of his MSS., ten contained the Gospels, eight the Acts and 
Epistles, and two the Apocalypse. Two of these MSS. of 
the Gospels were valuable (D and L), but he made very 
little use of them; indeed, the MS. readings given in his 
margin seem in general to have served rather for show 
than for use. Scrivener has noted one hundred and nine- 
teen places in which his text is in opposition to all of them. 
His text is, in fact, substantially formed from the last edi- 
tions of Erasmus (1527-35), which differ very slightly from 
each other. Now what was Erasmus’s critical apparatus ? 
In the Gospels, he had, all told, three MSS.,—one of the 
tenth century, and a good one, but which he hardly ever fol- 
lowed, because its text seemed so peculiar that he was afraid 
of it. He used as the basis of his text in the Gospels an 
imfernor MSi-of the fifteenth century; iim the, Acts’ and 
Catholic Epistles, he had four modern MSS.; in the Pauline 
Epistles, five; in the Revelation, only one, an inaccurate 
copy of which was used by the printer. This MS. was 
mutilated, lacking the last six verses of the book, which 
Erasmus supplied by ¢ranslating back from the Latin Vul- 
gate into pretty bad Greek. This was not all. In other 
passages he took the liberty of correcting or supplementing 


218 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


his text from the Latin Vulgate. Beza occasionally took a 
similar liberty; and the result is, that in a considerable 
number of cases, not, indeed, in general, of much impor- 
tance, the reading of the common English version is sz- 
ported by no known Greek MS., but rests on an error of 
Erasmus or Beza (for example, Acts ix. 5, 6; Rom. vii. 6; 
ΘΟ 1°65. 1 Pet, ii.20)5) Revel. (o;, Ul sak, S20 nea 
V2 TO) ΤΩ; XV. 2; XVI hj Ἐν Oy τος RV 2) che ΘΟ 
the foundation of the text on which the so-called Authorized 
Version was based. 

It is impossible, without entering into tedious detail, to 
give an adequate idea of the immense accession to our 
critical resources which has resulted from the lifelong labors 
of generations of scholars since our common version was 
made. I will merely allude to Mill’s edition of the Greek 
Testament (1707) on which he spent thirty years, mainly in 
collecting materials; to Bengel (1734), who did much to 
establish correct principles of criticism; to Wetstein, whose 
magnificent edition of the Greek Testament (1751-52), in 
two folio volumes, represents the arduous labor of forty 
years, and who added greatly to our knowledge of MSS. 
and the quotations of the Christian Fathers; and to the 
extensive collations of MSS. by Alter, Birch, with his asso- 
ciates, and Matthzei, the latter of whom alone carefully exam- 
ined more than one hundred. Above all his predecessors, 
Griesbach stands pre-eminent. He not only added much 
to the materials already collected, but was the first to turn 
them to proper account in the correction of the Received 
Text, and in critical tact has perhaps been excelled by none 
of those who have succeeded him. After Griesbach, who 
links the last to the present century, we may name the 
Roman Catholic Scholz, a poor critic, but who brought to 
light and partially collated many hundreds of MSS. before 
undescribed; Lachmann, the eminent classical scholar, 
whose original genius gave a new impulse to textual criti- 
cism; Scrivener, to whom we are indebted for excellent 
editions of two important uncial MSS. (the Codex Bezae or 
Cambridge MS. of the Gospels and the Acts, and the Codex 
Augiensis of the Pauline Epistles), and for the careful col- 


THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION 219 


lation of about seventy cursive MSS. ; and, above all, Tisch- 
endorf and Tregelles, whose indefatigable labors have made 
an epoch in the history of New Testament criticism. To 
describe these labors here in detail is utterly out of the 
question. It may suffice to say that, for the purpose of 
enlarging and perfecting our critical apparatus, Tischendorf 
visited nearly all the principal libraries of Europe, collating 
or copying for publication the most important MSS. of the 
New Testament, whose text had not before been printed. 
Besides this, he took three journeys to the East, bringing 
home rich MS. treasures, and crowning all with the mag- 
nificent discovery of the Sinai MS. of the fourth century, 
containing the New Testament absolutely complete. He 
spent more than eight years in these travels and collations. 
His editions of the texts of Biblical MSS. published by him 
for the first time, or for the first time accurately, comprise 
no less than seventeen large quarto and five folio volumes, 
not counting the dzecdota Sacra et Profana and the Notitia 
editionts Codicis Sinaitict, two quarto volumes containing 
descriptions or collations of many new MSS. Many of his 
collations or copies of important MSS. still remain unpub- 
lished, though used in his last critical edition of the Greek 
Testament. Between the years 1840 and 1873, he issued 
as many as twenty-four editions of the Greek New Testa- 
ment, including the reimpressions of his stereotyped edztio 
academica. Only four of these editions, however, those of 
1841, 1849, 1859, and 1869-72, are independently important 
as marking great advances in the acquisition of new mate- 
rials. The mere catalogue of Tischendorf’s publications, 
prepared by Dr. Gregory for the Bibliotheca Sacra (Janu- 
ary, 1876), most of them relating to Biblical criticism, covers 
more than ten octavo pages.* 

Dr. Tregelles, like Tischendorf, visited many of the prin- 
cipal European libraries, making three journeys to the Con- 
tinent for this purpose, and collated with extreme care the 
most important uncial MSS. and a number of very valuable 
cursives. Hecompared his collations with those of Tischen- 


[*See also Dr. Gregory’s Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s Editio Octava Critica Maitor, 
pp. 7-22.] 


220 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


dorf, and, in case of any discrepancy, settled the question 
by a re-examination of the MS. The only new MS. which 
be published was the Codex Zacynthius, a palimpsest of 
great value belonging to the Library of the British and 
Foreign Bible Society, and containing about a third of the 
Gospel of Luke. He issued but one edition of the Greek 
Testament (1857-72), and was disabled by paralysis from 
personally completing the Prolegomena or Introduction to 
this, and from supplying the needful corrections and addi- 
tions. His accuracy in the statement of his authorities, and 
the new material incorporated in the notes, give the work 
great value, and the arrangement of the matter is very lucid. 
But though not to be compared with Tischendorf in the 
extent of his contributions to our stock of critical material, 
Dr. Tregelles did far more than his rival to illustrate and 
enforce the principles on which a critical edition of the 
Greek Testament should be based, and to establish, by what 
he called “comparative criticism,” the right of a few of the 
oldest MSS., in many cases, to outweigh a vast numerical 
majority of later authorities. He did far more, probably, 
than any other writer, to overcome the blind and unreason- 
ing prejudice which so long existed in England in favor of 
the so-called “ Received Text.” 

A rough account of the number of Greek MSS. of the 
New Testament now known will give some idea of the vast 
enlargement of our critical materials since the time when 
the common English version was made. We have now for 
the Gospels sixty uncials (reckoning the six Psalters, etc., 
which contain the hymns in Luke 1. 46-55, 68-79, 11. 29-32), 
ranging from the fourth century to the tenth, and more than 
six hundred cursives, dating from the tenth century to the 
sixteenth; for the Acts and Catholic Epistles, seventeen 
uncials and over two hundred cursives; for the Pauline 
Epistles, twenty uncials and over two hundred and eighty 
cursives; for the Revelation, five uncials and about one 
hundred cursives. To these are to be added over three 
hundred and forty Evangelistaries and about eighty Praxa- 
postoli; that is, MSS. containing the Lessons from the 


THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION 225 


Gospels and the Acts and Epistles read in the service of 
the church. This very rough statement, however, requires 
much qualification to prevent a false impression, as more 
than half of the uncials are mere fragments, though very 
valuable fragments, and most of the others are more or less 
mutilated ; while a large majority of the cursives have been 
but partially collated, or only inspected. But αὖ of the 
uncials, incomparably the most valuable part of the appara- 
tus, have been thoroughly collated (with the exception of 
the recently discovered Codex Rossanensis); indeed, the 
whole text of the most valuable among them has been 
published. * 

There is another very important class of our critical docu- 
ments which can be noticed only in the briefest manner. 
The translations of the New Testament into different lan- 
guages, made at an early date for the benefit of Christian 
converts ignorant of Greek,—the ancient versions as they 
are commonly termed,— represent the text current in widely 
separated regions of the Christian world, and are often of 
the highest importance in settling questions of textual criti- 
cism. Two of these versions, the Old Latin and the Cure- 
tonian Syriac, belong to the second century; two, the Mem- 
phitic or Coptic, and the Thebaic or Sahidic, to the earlier 
part of the third; four more, the Peshito Syriac in its pres- 
ent form, the Gothic, the Latin Vulgate, and the Aethiopic 
(perhaps) to the fourth; two, the Armenian and the Jeru- 
salem Syriac, to the fifth; and there are several other later 
versions of considerable importance, as the Philoxenian or 
Harclean Syriac and the Slavonic. The earlier editors of 
the Greek Testament knew none of these except the Vul- 
gate and the Peshito, and the former only ina very corrupt 
text. They made little use of either of them, except occa- 
sionally to corrupt the Greek text from the more familiar 
Vulgate. The Curetonian Syriac is a recent discovery ; 


[*See Schaff’s Companion to the Greek Testament and English Version, p. 101 sq., and 
the Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s eighth edition, p. 338. It may be added that a collation of the 
Gospels of Matthew and Mark, as given in the Codex Rossanensis, has been published in Geb- 
hardt and Harnack’s Texte und Untersuchungen, τέ. 5. τὸ. Bd. 1. Heft 4; compare Professor 
Sanday’s Essay in Studia Biblica (Oxford, 1885), pp. 103-112; and p. 238 below. ] 


222 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


and the value of this and of the other early versions in text- 
ual criticism can hardly be overestimated. Our knowledge 
of the Old Latin version or versions has been very greatly 
extended by the labors of scholars in the present century in 
connection with the discovery of new MSS. 

A third and also very important class of our authorities 
is the numerous quotations of the New Testament by early 
Christian writers, many of them one or two centuries earlier 
than the date of our oldest MSS. In respect to these, 
though Mill, Bengel, Wetstein, Sabatier, Griesbach, Mat- 
theei, and others, had made extensive collections, our criti- 
cal apparatus has been greatly augmented by the labors of 
Tischendorf and Tregelles. 

The most valuable result of these vast accessions to our 
critical apparatus has been indirect rather than direct. It 
has enabled us to trace the outlines of the history of the 
text; to determine, approximately, the relative value of our 
different authorities and their distinguishing characteristics ; 
it has enabled us to establish on a solid foundation certain 
principles of criticism, which serve as a guide through the 
labyrinth of conflicting testimonies. 

A careful study of the occasions of error in copying is an 
important preparation for the decision of many questions in 
textual criticism. The way in which the oldest MSS. were 
generally written, with no spaces between the words except 
at the end of a long paragraph (where a space about half 
the width of a capital letter is often left in the Vatican MS.), 
no distinction of the beginning of sentences by larger 
initial letters, with very few points, perhaps none for a 
whole page, and no accents or breathings, greatly increased 
the liability to mistakes in transcription. How easy it is to 
make such mistakes, even under favorable circumstances, is 
well known to every proof-reader. Many of the occasions of 
error in copying MSS.— mistakes of the eye, the ear, and 
of memory — affect in a similar manner the work of the 
printer; so that the critical examination of typographical 
errors throws no little light on some of the problems pre- 
sented by the variations in ancient MSS. The proper 


THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION 223 


comparison, indeed, would be between the errors in a MS. 
and those in the compositor’s first proof; but it may not 
be without interest to illustrate by examples some of the 
occasions of error common to MSS. and printed books. 

In the year 1833 there was published at Oxford an 
“Exact Reprint” of what was then supposed to be the first 
edition of the common English version of the Bible, printed 
in 1611. (Two editions were actually printed that year; 
and which of these is the one represented in the ‘‘ Exact 
Reprint” is still in cispute.*) To this is prefixed a collation 
of the text with that of one of the editions of 1613. The 
variations noted (about 412 in all), which do not include 
mere differences in spelling, occupy seven or eight pages 
quarto. From these I select a few illustrations of different 
classes of mistakes. 

The first is an example of omzsszon occasioned by what is 
called homeoteleuton, that is, the “like ending” of succes- 
sive words or clauses. In the edition of 1611, John xx. 25 
feads thus: “Except I shall see: in his hands the print 
of the nailes, and put my finger into the print of the nailes, 
and thrust my hand into his side,” etc. Here, in the edi- 
tion of 1613, the words “‘and put my finger into the print 
of the nailes’’ are omitted. The compositor having set up 
the first clause of the verse, ending with “the print of the. 
nailes,’ glances back to his text, and, seeing the second 
“print of the nailes,’’ supposes ¢Za¢ is what he has just put 
in type, and goes on with the “and thrust,” unconsciously 
omitting the second clause. This kind of mistake occurs 
very frequently in MSS. In the edition of 1613, clauses 
were also accidentally omitted on account of the recurrence 
of the same word in 1 Kings Π| 15, Hab. ii. 5, Matt. xiii. 
8 and xvi. 11, and two whole verses (vv. 13, 14) were 
dropped in the sixteenth chapter of Ecclesiasticus, owing 
to the fact that verses 12 ahd 14 each end with the phrase 
“according to his workes.” In Blayney’s edition of 1769, 
intended to be a standard, seventeen words were inadver- 
tently omitted in Rev. xviii. 22, on account of the recur- 
rence of the word “more.” In the Sinaitic MS., omissions 


* (Scrivener (Authorized Edition of the Eng. Bible, Cambr. 1884, p. 5 ff.) thinks the second. ] 


224 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


- 


from this cause are very numerous; some of the most 
remarkable will be found at Matt. xxvi. 62, 63; Mark x. 35, 
37; Luke x. 32; John xix. 20, 21; Acts xiv. 20, 21; Eph. ii. 
7; Rev. iv. 3. In the Alexandrian MS., four whole verses 
(t Cor. vi. 3-6) are omitted on account of the like ending of 
the last word in verse 2 and the last in verse 6. In 1 John 
ii. 23, in our common English version the last clause is 
printed in italics as spurious, or of doubtful genuineness. 
It is unquestionably genuine; its accidental omission in 
many MSS. being occasioned by the fact that in the orig- 
inal it ends with the same words as the first clause. 

The omission of a small word where the sense is not 
materially affected is very common in the English Bible of 
1613 referred to above as compared with the edition of 
1611; and it also occurs in some places where the sense 
is essentially changed by it; for example, 2 Tim. iv. 16, 
where we read, “I pray God that it may be laid to their 
charge,” instead of “may zoz¢ be laid.” In other passages, 
as πεν τ Ie Neh.) x» 3p dizek. \xxiv7 τ Cor ain 
this important little word of is found in one of these edi- 
tions and not in the other. In an edition of the English 
Bible printed in 1632 |’31 ?], as is well known, the word zot 
was omitted from the seventh commandment; and another 
edition reads in 1 Cor. vi. 9, ‘‘ Know ye not that the unright- 
eous shall inherit the kingdom of God?” 

We have seen how the recurrence of the same word, or 
of the same ending of a word, may occasion an omission. 
It may also occasion the unconscious vepefztion of a clause 
or sentence. We have a very curious example of this in 
Exod. xiv. 10 in the English Bible of 1611 according to the 
Oxford ‘Exact Reprint,” where twenty-one words were re- 
peated by accident, thus :— 


IOIL. 


And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the 
children of Israel lift vp their eyes, and 
behold, the Egyptians marched after 
them, and they were sore afraid: and 
the children of Israel lift vp their eyes, 
and beholde, the Ezyptians marched 
after them, and thev were sore afraid ; 


and the children of Israel cried out . 


vnto the Lord. 


1613. 


And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the 
children of Israel lift vp their eyes, 
and behold, the Egyptians marched 
after them, and they were sore afraid: 
and the children of Israel cried out 
vnto the Lord. 


THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION 225 


Here we perceive that the cause of the error, not surprising 
in a first proof, but strangely uncorrected, was the recur- 
rence of the words “the children of Israel” in two successive 
parts of a long sentence. The sleepy compositor, having 
Set up the verse as far as the second “children of Israel” 
(inclusive), looked back to his text, and seeing the frst 
“children of Israel,’ which he supposed was what he had 
just put in type, went on with the words following. 

There are several remarkable examples of such repetition 
ite: Vatican MS.; one in Rom, τὸν 4,5, anothersin’ 2 Gor. 
lil. 14, 15; in each case the origin of the error will appear 
on consulting the Greek. It is fortunate on one account 
that these mistakes were made, as it is only in such dupli- 
cated passages that the beautiful original writing has pre- 
served its primitive form, a later hand having elsewhere 
retouched the letters and added accents and breathings. 
There is a more extraordinary case of this kind in the 
Sinaitic MS., 1 Thess. ii. 13, 14, where twenty-five words 
are repeated on account of the recurrence of τοῦ θεοῦ, “οἵ 
God.” This mistake was, however, corrected by the con- 
temporary reviser of the MS. In a few other instances, as 
Luke xvii. 16, Eph. vi. 3, a verse has been carelessly repeated 
in the Codex Sinaiticus. 

An unconscious substitution of one word for another 
equivalent in meaning often occurs in copying, and even in 
printing. In such cases, a familiar or easy form of expres- 
sion usually takes the place of one which is harsh or unusual. 
Thus, in Gen. xxvii. 44, the edition of 1611 reads, correctly, 
“until thy brother’s furie zwrze away” ; the edition of 1613 
substitutes “fasse away”; Prov. xiv. 15, “The simple 
beleeveth every word” (1611) becomes “The simple deleevz 
every word” (1613); Mark xii. 13, “And they sexd vnto 
him certaine of the Pharisees,” reads in the edition of 1613 
“they sezz,” etc. Here the original settles the true reading 
of the English version ; were it otherwise, the maxim, “The 
more difficult reading is to be preferred,” would lead to the 
same result. 

More extraordinary substitutions sometimes occur, in 


226 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


which a word suggested to the mind of the transcriber or 
printer by the preceding context is unconsciously set in the 
place of the true word. This may be the origin of a mis- 
print which has usurped the place of the true reading in all 
copies of our common English version; namely, “the pro- 
fession of our faith,” in Heb. x. 23, for “the profession of 
our hope.” The Greek word here represented by “ faith” 
is everywhere else in the New Testament rendered “hope,” 
and has no other meaning. It is so rendered in Heb. x. 
23, in all the earlier English versions. It is incredible that 
our translators, in opposition to the original, deliberately 
changed the “hope” of their predecessors to “faith.” As 
a misprint, which would easily escape correction, it may 
have originated in the expression ‘‘assurance of faith”’ in the 
preceding verse, putting the thought of “faith” into the 
mind of the type-setter, and thus making it natural for him to 
substitute the common expression, “profession of fazth,” for 
the unusual one, “profession of “ope.” This may also have 
been facilitated by the occurrence of the word “ faithful” in 
the following clause. We have a somewhat similar substitu- 
tion in the edition of 1613 of “shzzed through darkenesse”’ 
for “ walked through darkenesse”’ in Job xxix. 3, the word 
“shined” occurring in the preceding clause. In John x. 25, 
“T told you, and ye deleved not,” “believed” is doubtless 
a printer’s mistake, very natural after “told,” for “ believe.” 
The verb is in the present tense in the Greek, with no vari- 
ous reading, and all the earlier English versions read “ be- 
lieve.” It cannot be reasonably supposed that our trans- 
lators deliberately altered this correct rendering, while, as an 
unintentional change after a past tense, it would be more 
likely to occur than “sent” for “send” and “said” for 
“say,” which we find in the Bible of 1613 at Mark xii. 13, 14. 

We find occasional examples of the unconscious addition 
of words not belonging to the text, but merely suggested by 
the context. In Gen. xv. 24, in the edition of 1611, we read 
“that which the yong men have eaten, and the portion of 
the men that went with mee.” The edition of 1613 reads 
“the portion of the o/de men that went with mee.” There 


THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION 227 


is no authority for “olde”; the mention of the young men 
suggested by contrast the idea of old men, and thus the in- 
sertion was innocently made. Perhaps such is the origin in 
the Greek text of the addition “openly” in Matt. vi. 4, 6, 
18, rightly rejected by the Revisers as spurious. In Matt. 
xxv. 6, the true text reads, “ Behold, the bridegroom!” the 
addition “cometh,” found in the great mass of the later MSS., 
was not probably a deliberate interpolation, but what the 
mind supplied was unconsciously added to the text. 

These illustrations from the English Bible of some occa- 
sions of error in copying have been carried much further 
than was intended, and many things which they suggest 
must be passed over. An examination of the whole list of 
differences between the editions of 1611 and 1613 would 
show the great value of such a comparison for the correction 
of the errors of both. In the case of variations that affect 
the sense, the mere comparison, without reference to the orig- 
inal Hebrew or Greek, would in most cases at once deter- 
mine the true reading. The addition of another independent 
early copy, though it would add to the number of variations, 
would settle most of the remaining questions. Indeed, the 
grosser errors would at once suggest their own correction. 
The analogy between the early printed editions of King 
James’s version as compared with modern copies, and the 
oldest MSS. of the New Testament as compared with those 
from six to twelve hundred years later, obviously fails in 
many important respects; but, as no one would dispute 
the pre-eminent value of these editions in an investigation 
of the text of our translators, notwithstanding their gross 
misprints, the pre-eminent value of our oldest MSS. is 
not destroyed by the fact that they each contain many 
errors of the scribe. The carelessness of the copyist im- 
pairs the value of a MS. where its testimony is single, and 
especially when the apparent error is one to which he 
is proved to have been prone; but a comparison with 
other MSS., or often the nature of the error itself, will 
enable us to correct with confidence these transcriptional 
mistakes, and thus reach a text incomparably purer than 


228 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


thar presented by the great’. mass-'ot ate’ MSS, Such 
arguments as writers like Mr. Burgon use against the 
authority of the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS., even if not 
founded on false premises, as they are to a large extent, 
would simply destroy the authority of αὐ our MSS., and a 
fortiori that of the ancient versions and the quotations found 
in early Christian writers. We may learn much from an 
honest witness, even if he is not infallible; and there can 
be no possible doubt that the New Testament scribes were 
in general honest. 

In considering the principles of criticism which have gov- 
erned the Revisers in determining the Greek text, it will be 
better to begin with concrete examples which serve to illus- 
trate them than to state them baldly beforehand in an 
abstract form. 

An instructive example for our purpose will be found in 
the quotations from Isa. xxix. 13 in Matt. xv. 8 This 
reads in the Revised Version, “This people honoureth me 
with their lips, but their heart is far from me”; in the 
Common Version, “This people dvaweth nigh to me with 
their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips, but their 
heart,” etc., the latter agreeing with the Septuagint in the 
addition of the words here italicized. The shorter reading 
is supported by five uncial MSS., & and B,—that is, the 
Sinaitic and Vatican (of the fourth century),— D (the Codex 
Bezae) and T° (sixth century), and L, of the eighth century, 
and two cursives, 33 (eleventh century) and 124 (twelfth 
century); by the Old Latin version or versions (except the 
MS. f, that is, Codex Brixianus) and the Vulgate, the Cure- 
tonian and Peshito Syriac, the Memphitic, Aethiopic, Arme- 
nian, and Persic versions; by the quotations of the Gnostic 
Ptolemy in the second century, Clement of Alexandria, 
Origen repeatedly, who expressly remarks upon the reading, 
Eusebius, Basil the Great (or Pseudo-Basil), Chrysostom, 
Cyril of Alexandria, and of Tertullian, Cyprian, and the 
Latin Fathers generally. Clement of Rome (first century) 
quotes the passage in the shorter form, and so it is quoted 
in the spurious Second Epistle (or Homily) to the Corin- 


THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION 229 


thians ascribed to him (second century). On the other side 
are fourteen uncials; namely, C, the Ephraem palimpsest of 
the fifth century, E of the eighth century, and the rest of 
the ninth and tenth centuries, with several hundreds of cur- 
sives, from the tenth to the sixteenth centuries ; the Latin 
MS. f, representing a late revision of the Old Latin; and 
the Harclean Syriac version, of the seventh century. 

We observe first that, if the disputed clause be genu- 
ine, its omission must have been the result either of accident 
or of design. But it cannot have been omitted by accident 
from authorities so numerous, so independent, and so wide- 
spread, representing all the principal regions of the Christian 
world. There is no homaotcleuton here. Nor is there the 
slightest probability that it was omitted by design. Should 
it be suggested that it was omitted to make the contrast 
of the second and third clauses more forcible, it may be 
replied that there is no evidence that the scribes dealt 
in any such way with their MSS., or, rather, abundant 
evidence that such was not their habit. Their work was 
mechanical; and they had some respect for the Scriptures. 
Internal evidence is thus fatal to the clause; and we cannot 
fail to be struck at once with the immense preponderance of 
the ancient evidence, of all sorts, against it. 

But how can we explain the addition? Very easily: it 
came in from the Septuagint version. In the case of pas- 
sages from the Old Testament quoted in the New, where 
they are often cited freely, or abridged, it was customary to 
note in the margin the differences between their text in the 
Septuagint and in the New Testament. In a similar man- 
ner, the report of Christ’s sayings or doings in one Gospel 
was often supplemented by marginal or interlinear notes 
derived from the parallel passages in one or more of the 
other Gospels. Glosses, or interpretations of difficult words, 
were often given in the margin. Words or clauses acci- . 
dentally omitted by the scribe were also placed there. 
Owing to this last circumstance, it frequently happened 
that, in copying MSS. containing these various marginal 
notes and glosses, the scribe either added them to his text, 


230 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


supposing them to have been accidentally left out by the 
former copyist, or substituted them for the true text, sup- 
posing them to be a correction. This has been a main 
source of corruption in the later MSS. of the Gospels, as 
will be seen hereafter. Taking all these things into con- 
sideration, we may conclude with absolute confidence that 
the shorter reading here is the true one. 

The case is equally clear in the quotation from Isa. lxi. 1 
in Luke iv. 18, 19, where the words “to heal the broken- 
hearted” are omitted by the Revisers. They are wanting 
in the uncial MSS. δ, B, D, L, and the Codex Zacynthius 
(eighth century), in the cursives 13, 33, 69, in most MSS. of 
the Old Latin vers‘on or versions and the best of the 
Vulgate, also in the Memphitic, Aethiopic, and Armenian 
versions, and in the quotations of Origen, Eusebius, Atha- 
nasius, and Cyril of Alexandria. The omission of the 
clause cannot be explained as the result either of accident 
or design: it came in from the Septuagint. So in Matt. it 
18, the words “lamentation and” before “weeping and 
great mourning,” in the quotation from Jer. xxxi. (Sept. 
XXXvili.) 15 are rightly omitted in the new version on the 
authority of &, B, Z (the Dublin palimpsest, sixth century), 
the cursives I, 22, the Old Latin, Vulgate, Memphitic, The- 
baic, Peshito Syriac, and Jerusalem Syriac versions, and the 
quotation of Justin Martyr (second century). The omission 
here cannot be explained as the result either of accident or 
design ; and the combination of very ancient evidence against 
it, representing all quarters of the Christian world, is abso- 
lutely decisive. It was introduced, as in the other cases, 
from the Septuagint version. Other instances of the ampli- 
fication of passages quoted from the Old Testament will be 
found in the “ Received Text” in Rom. xiii. 9 and Heb. xii. 
20, where the clauses “thou shalt not bear false witness” 
and “or thrust through with a dart” are omitted by the 
Revisers. Heb. ii. 7 may be another case. See the Re 
visers’ margin. 

Looking back now at the documentary evidence in the 
three passages examined, we see the great mass of the 


THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION 231 


cursive MSS. and all the later uncials agreeing in readings 
which are certainly false. It becomes evident, then, that 
our MSS. must be weighed, not counted. These are only 
a few out of a vast multitude of examples in which the 
force of evidence, internal and external, compels us to accept 
a reading supported by a very small number of our oldest 
MSS. in opposition to the great horde of later authorities. 
This is particularly the case in questions of omission or 
addition. 

We have seen the manner in which abridged quotations 
from the Old Testament in the Gospels are supplemented 
in the later MSS. and the Received Text from the Septua- 
gint. We shall now notice some examples of the way in 
which the text of one Gospel has been interpolated by the 
addition of words or clauses which belong to another, or in 
which its language has been assimilated to that used in the 
parallel passages. 

In Matt. xx. 22, the common version reads: “Are ye 
able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of [and to be 
baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with] ?” and 
maverse 23, “Ye shall indeed drink of my cup) [and be 
baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with].’”’ The 
clauses here bracketed are wanting in, B, D, L, Z, in 
the cursives I and 22 (in verse 23 in six others besides 
these), in most of the MSS. of the Old Latin version or 
versions, the Vulgate, the Curetonian Syriac, the Memphi- 
tic, Thebaic, Aethiopic, and Persic versions, and in the quota- 
tions of Origen, Epiphanius, John of Damascus, and the 
Latin Fathers generally. Origen (in the early part of the 
third century) expressly notes the fact that they were found 
in Mark, but not in Matthew. In Mark x. 38, 39, none of 
the MSS. or versions omit them. But, in Matthew, C alone 
contains them, among our MSS. of the oldest class; they 
are found in thirteen of the later uncials (all but one of 
them belonging to the ninth or tenth century), in the great 
mass of cursives, in three MSS. of the Old Latin, in the 
Peshito, Harclean Syriac, and Armenian versions, and in 
the quotations of Chrysostom and Basil of Seleucia. (Most 
of these authorities read “or” for “and” in verse 22.) 


232 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Now, if these clauses belonged originally to the text, they 
must have been omitted by accident or by design. They 
could not have been omitted accidentally in so many and so 
independent very early authorities, including all, so far as 
we know, that represent the second and third centuries. 
In the 23d verse, the last word in the Greek indeed agrees 
in the last four letters with the word which ends the pre- 
ceding clause; but there is no such occasion for accidental 
omission in verse 22. Nor can we discover any motive for 
intentional omission of the clauses. On the other hand, 
their insertion is readily explained by their existence in 
Mark. We conclude then, with confidence, that the clauses 
in question did not belong to the original text. 

Among the numerous examples in which the text followed 
in the common version has received similar additions from 
the parallel passages are — Matt. 1. 25, where for “her first- 
born son”’ the oldest authorities read simply “a son,” the 
fuller form coming from Luke ii. 7, where all the MSS. have 
it; Matt. v. 44, where “bless them that curse you, do good 
to them that hate you,” and “despitefully use you and,” are 
from Luke vi. 27, 28; Matt. viii. 29, where “Jesus” is from 
Mark v. 7 and Luke viii. 28; Matt. ix. 13 and Mark ii, 17, 
where the words ‘“‘to repentance”’ are from Luke v. 32; 
Matt. xvi. 3, where «Ὁ ye hypocrites” is from Luke xii. 56. 
In Matt. xvii. 21, the whole verse, probably, was introduced 
from. Mark ᾿χ. 20, and’ Matt, xvii. Tr trom Luke aux ΤΟΙ 
In Matt. xix. 16, 17, the Revisers’ text omits “good” before 
“Master,” and reads, “ Why askest thou me concerning that 
which is good? One there is who is good,” instead of, 
“Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, 
that is, God,” the readings of the Received Text being found 
without any important variation in the parallel passages, 
Marke x; 17, 18, Luke: xvii, 18; τὸ. Here the readings 
adopted in the new revision have in their favor a great 
preponderance of the most ancient testimony of MSSG., ver- 
sions, and Fathers, while their origin in accident seems 
impossible; and the only apparent motive for deliberate 
alteration, the avoiding of a theological difficulty, would be 


THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION 233 


equally strong in the case of the parallel passages in Mark 
and Luke, where there is no trace of an attempt to remove 
it in that way. The judgment of the Revisers is accord- 
ingly supported by that of a great majority of the better 
critics, as Mill, Bengel, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, 
Tregelles, Alford, Green, Westcott and Hort, Porter, Da- 
vidson, Scrivener, De Wette, Meyer, Weiss, Keil, etc. In 
Matt. xix. 20, the words “from my youth up” are derived 
from Mark x. 20 and Luke xviii. 21; “or wife” in Matt. 
mie 2 and Mark x: 20, from Woke) xvili:.29; the verse 
Matt. x11, 14 is from Mark xii) 40) and Luke’ xx. 47 ; Matt. 
XXVil. 35, ‘that it might be fulfilled” to the end, from John 
x1x. 24. In this last case, the question might arise whether 
the omission was not accidental, on account of the recur- 
rence of the word “lots’’; but the authorities against the 
sentence are so numerous and weighty, including all our 
uncial MSS. but one, a host of cursives, most of the ancient 
versions, and the commentators among the Christian 
Fathers, that this explanation must be dismissed. 

In Mark itl. 5 and Luke vi. 10, “whole, as the other,” 
comes from Matt. xii. 13; in Mark vi. 11, “ Verily I say unto 
vou, etc, tothe end of ‘the verse) from’ Matt. x.15 ; Mark 
vii. 16, “If any man have. ears to hear, let him hear,” may 
be from Mark iv. 23, though substantially the same words 
Gccur also im Math Χὶ 15; xii: Ὁ. 22; Mark iv. 9; Luke viii. 
8; xiv. 35. They appear as an unquestionable interpolation 
invmany MoS pin luke xii. 27 and xxi! 4. Mark. xi..26/is 
probably from Matt. vi. (5, though the omission might pos- 
sibly be occasioned by the like ending of the preceding 
verse. Mark xv. 28 is.from Luke xxii. 37. 

In Luke iv. 2, “afterward”; 4, “by every word of God’’; 
5, “into a high mountain”’; 8, “ get thee behind me, Satan, 
Homecare trom. Matt. ἵν. 2 ἢ, 8. 10, “and. xvi...235 
ukery. 36, “and both are’ preserved: from Matt: 1x, 17; 
Duke wil.AS, ““berof goodcomtort; is, from. Matt. ix. 22; 
Luke viii. 54, ‘‘put them all out, and”’ is from Mark v. 40. 
In Luke xi. 2, 4, the words or clauses in the Lord’s Prayer 
in the common version which are omitted in the revision are 


234 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


borrowed from Matt. vi. 9, 10, 13. We have the ex>ress 
testimony of Origen that they were wanting in the MSS. of 
Luke in his day. In Luke xi. 44, “scribes and Pharisees, 
hypocrites,” is from Matt. xxill. 27; “ desolate,” in Luke xiii. 
35, from Matt. xxiii. 38; and the verse Luke xvii. 36 comes 
doubtless from Matt. xxiv. 40. Homeoteleuton might indeed 
operate here, but all the uncial MSS. except two omit the 
verse. Our translators of 1611 note in their margin that it 
is “wanting in most of the Greek copies.” They followed 
Beza against Erasmus and Stephens. 

In John vi. 69, the true reading is, with little doubt, “thou 
art the Holy One of God,” instead of, “thou art the Christ, 
the Son of the living God,” which comes from Matt. xvi. 16. 

The text has often been amplified from the context, or 
from other parts of the same Gospel. In many cases this 
might be done by a transcriber unconsciously. So in Matt. 
i. 6, “the king” has been added to the second “ David” from 
the preceding clause; the subject “Jesus,” for example, is 
supplied in Matt. iv. 12, 18, viii. 3, 5, 7, and often elsewhere ; 
‘by them of old time” (more properly “zo them,” etc:)in 
Matt. v. 27 is added from verse 21; ‘‘among the people” 
in Matt. ix.%35 \comés from iv. 23 ; “ first’ before “come 
Matt. xvii. 11, is from verse 10, or perhaps from Mark ix. 12; 
“idle,” Matt. xx. 6, comes from verse 3, and the last two 
clauses of verse 7 from verse 4, slightly modified; “for many 
be called, but few chosen,” in Matt. xx. 16, isfrom Matt. xxi. 
14. In Matt. xxviii. 9 (8), “And as they went to tell his 
disciples”? seems to have been added from the preceding 
verses; but accidental omission from omeoteleuton is pos- 
sible. Mark vii. 8, “as the washing of pots and cups, and 
many other such like things ye do,” is from verses 4 and 13; 
the verses Mark ix. 44, 46, are from verse 48, and the last 
clause of verse 45 from verse 43; “whatsoever he saith,” 
Mark xi. 23, is from the beginning of the verse. In Lukei. 
28, “blessed art thou among women” is from verse 42; in 
Luke ii. 40, “in spirit’? comes from i. 80; “to Jerusalem,” 
Luke ii. 42, from verse 41; Luke vi. 45, “man” and ‘“treas- 
ure of his heart” after “evil” are from the first part of the 


THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION 235 


verse; 1n John 1. 27, the amplified form of the Received Text 
is from verse I5. 

Marginal notes or glosses have often been taken into the 
text. Many of the supplements already mentioned were 
probably first written in the margin. Examples of glosses 
or marginal notes added to the text, or substituted for the 
true reading, are Matt. v. 22 (probably), “ without a cause” ; 
Wi. i, “alms’’ (see verse 2) for “righteousness” ; Matt: xxv. 
13, “wherein the Son of man cometh”; Mark vii. 2, “they 
found fault ” (inserted to remove a supposed difficulty in the 
construction) ; Mark vii. 5, ““unwashen ”’ for “defiled’’ (liter- 
ally, common) hands ; Luke x. 35, “when he departed”’; xi. 
54, “and seeking”’ and “ that they might accuse him” (com- 
pare Matt. xii. 10, Mark ii. 2); Luke xxii. 64, “struck him 
on the face, and”; Luke xxiii. 17, the whole verse; John v. 
16, ‘and sought to slay him”; viii. 59, “going through the 
midst of them, and so passed by” (compare Luke iv. 30); 
ΧΙ. 41, “from the place where the dead was laid.” 

The spurious additions to the text which we have thus 
far considered are in one point of view of little importance, 
as nearly all of them either grow out of the context by a 
natural or necessary inference, or are unquestionably gen- 
uine in the Gospel from which they are derived. From 
another point of view, however, they are pernicious. This 
assimilation of the parallel passages of the Gospels by later 
copyists is very misleading to one who is carefully studying 
their relation to one another: it makes them appear much 
less independent than they really are. The Revisers have 
greatly aided the English reader who wishes to compare 
the different Gospels intelligently: first, by the purification 
of their text; and, secondly, by the pains which they have 
taken to translate the same Greek words and phrases, when 
they are found in parallel passages of the Gospels, in the 
same way. The common version is surprisingly faulty in 
this respect, often leading the English reader to suppose 
there is a difference in the original where there is really an 
agreement, or an agreement where there is a difference. 

But though the great majority of the later additions to 


236 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


the text of our Gospels originated in the way above ex- 
plained, a certain number are from a source not yet men- 
tioned. Our four Gospels are all only fragmentary sketches 
of the life and teaching of Jesus (compare John xx. 20; [xxi. 
25]). Sayings and doings of his which they have not re- 
corded would naturally be handed down, in a more or less 
imperfect form, by tradition. A considerable number of 
such sayings, some of them probably genuine, are found in 
early Christian writings. It would be strange if some of 
these traditionary sayings or incidents did not find their 
way, in certain MSS., into the text of our Gospels. This 
has actually been the case, though to an extent far less than 
one might have expected. In the MS. D of the Gospels, in 
most MSS. of the Old Latin, and in the Curetonian Syriac 
version, there is an addition of this kind of considerable 
length at Matt. xx. 28, founded probably on a misreport of 
the parable Luke xiv. 7-11. A saying respecting the Sab- 
bath, ascribed to Christ, is inserted in D (the Codex Bezae) 
ab Γι vais: 

The longest and the most remarkable of the comparatively 
few interpolations of this sort in the Received Text of the 
Gospels is the passage relating to the woman taken in adul- 
tery, John vii. 53 to viii 11 inclusive. The Revisers have 
separated this from the context by an extra space, and en- 
closed it in brackets, with a marginal note stating the fact 
that most of the ancient authorities omit it, and that those 
which contain it vary much from each other. An over- 
whelming preponderance of the weightiest testimony of all 
kinds—of our oldest MSS., the ancient versions, and 
the Christian Fathers who have commented on the Gos- 
pel—is against it; the only MS. of the oldest class which 
contains it (D) gives it in a form differing much from that 
in the mass of the later MSS., while these vary not a little 
from one another. More than ten MSS. put it at the end 
of the Gospel; one inserts it after John vii. 36; four others 
place it at the end of the twenty-first chapter of Luke. Very 
many of the MSS. which have it, including five of the later 
uncials, mark it either with asterisks or obeli as something 


THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION 237 


which ought to be added or omitted; many other MSS. have 
notes or scholia to the effect that it is “wanting in most 
Copies, or “in the more accurate copies’; or that it is 
“found in some copies,” or ‘‘in the more ancient copies.” It 
breaks the connection, and differs in style from the rest of 
the Gospel. These phenomena are irreconcilable with the 
supposition that it belonged originally to the text, and nearly 
all critics of reputation agree in rejecting it as a later addi- 
tion. This does not prove the story false ; on the contrary, 
it has many internal marks of truth. 

Another remarkable interpolation is that in John v. 3, 4, 
respecting the descent of the angel at the pool of Bethesda, 
where the ancient evidence against the questionable por- 
tions is so strong, and the variations among the authorities 
that contain them are so numerous, that there can be no 
reasonable doubt of their spuriousness, though they were 
early added to the text. 

Another is the rebuke of James and John by Christ, as 
mien i tie Received Text in Lukéix 755: Tle evidence 
against the genuineness of the words placed in the margin 
by the Revisers is decisive, though in this case also the addi- 
tion was made as early as the second century. But the 
words bear the stamp of a genuine utterance of Christ in 
their originality and their harmony with his character. The 
clause “even as Elijah did” at the end of verse 54 is also 
rightly rejected by the Revisers, as wanting in the best 
MSS. and other ancient authorities, while its omission can- 
not be reasonably explained as due either to accident or 
design. 

The last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark present a 
problem of much interest in connection with this subject. 
They are retained by the Revisers without brackets, but 
are separated by an extra space from the preceding, with a 
marginal note mentioning their absence from the two oldest 
Greek MSS. and other documents, and that some other 
authorities have a still different ending of the Gospel. This 
is not the place for entering into a discussion of the difficult 
and complicated question concerning the genuineness of 


238 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


these verses, of which the Rev. (now Very Rev.) Mr. Burgon 
is the most prominent advocate. 

Of the passages of any considerable length in the Gos- 
pels which the Revisers have been constrained to reject as 
later additions to the text there remains only, I believe, the 
doxology of the Lord’s Prayer. Here an examination of 
the evidence will satisfy us that the words could not have 
been omitted by accident from. the authorities in which they 
_ are wanting; and the beauty of the doxology is such that it 
could not have been omitted by design. On the other hand, 
its addition from the liturgical service of the church was 
most natural. It is founded on 1 Chron. xxix. 11. In many 
of the MSS. which contain it, it is written in red ink, to 
distinguish it from the proper text ; in others, it appears only 
in the margin: such MSS. mark the steps of its introduc- 
tion. It is found in the newly discovered Codex Rossanen- 
sts, of the latter part of the sixth or the beginning of the 
seventh century; but this MS., to judge from the readings 
which have been published, though better than the ninth 
and tenth century uncials, represents a text far less pure 
than that of our uncials of the fourth, fifth, and sixth cen- 
turies, 8, B, D, Z, which omit the doxology (A and C are 
mutilated here), as do also the cursives I, 17, 118, 130, 200, 
of which 1, 118, and 209 are of exceptional excellence. The 
testimony of the Old Latin, Vulgate, and Memphitic ver- 
sions against it, and the dead silence respecting it of the 
early commentators on the Prayer, as Origen, Tertullian, 
Cyprian, are of very great weight; while its variations in 
form in several of the versions and ancient quotations in 
which something like it is found, diminish their authority as 
witnesses in its favor. 

This detailed, though incomplete, exhibition of supple- 
ments to the original text from the Septuagint version of 
the Old Testament, from parallel passages in the Gospels, 
from the context of the passage itself, or from similar pas- 
sages in other parts of the same Gospel, from marginal notes 
or glosses, and sometimes from tradition, is intended to 
serve several purposes besides that of an enumeration of 


THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW REVISION 239 


remarkable changes of text in the new revision. A very 
large part of these changes consists in the omzsszon of words 
or clauses, or even whole verses, which are found in the 
common text ; in comparatively few cases have words been 
added by the Revisers. To many readers these omissions 
of familiar words will seem little less than sacrilege. One 
little versed in criticism and unacquainted with MSS. is 
likely to say to himself, ““The presumption is altogether in 
favor of the fuller text: transcribers might easily omit words 
by accident, but they could only add by design; and we can- 
not suppose that any considerable number of them would 
wilfully interpolate writings which they regarded as sacred, 
especially after the warning in Rev. xxii. 18.” 

This view of the matter is very superficial We have 
seen in the few cases in which the evidence has been stated 
that, if the longer form of the passage were the original, 
we could not rationally explain the omissions as the result 
either of accident or design. Very strange omissions will 
sometimes occur through accident in a single MS.; but the 
chances will be perhaps a thousand to one against another 
independent copyist’s making the same blunder. In the 
cases in which the evidence has not been stated, it would 
in general be equally clear, I believe, on examination, that 
the hypothesis that the longer form of the passage was gen- 
uine would leave the omission entirely unaccountable; while, 
if the shorter form were the original, we should have a plau- 
sible explanation of the addition. Each repeated instance 
of this kind strengthens our conviction that in this expla- 
nation we are on the right track. And we are confirmed 
in our view when we find that the tendency to add rather 
than to omit characterizes the MSS. of ancient classical 
authors, and that the most eminent philologists fully recog- 
nize the principle to which our New Testament examples 
seem irresistibly to lead us. For example, Porson says in 
his Letters to Travis (p. 149), “Perhaps you think it ‘an 
absurd and affected idea’ that a marginal note can ever 
creep into the text; yet I hope you are not so ignorant as 
not to know that this has actually happened, not merely in 


240 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


hundreds or thousands, but in millions of places.” He 
then quotes Daillé and Bengel on this point, and adds, 
“From this known propensity of transcribers to turn every- 
thing into text which they found written in the margin of 
their MSS. or between the lines, so many interpolations 
have proceeded that at present the surest canon of criticism 
is, Praeferatur lectio brevior.” (That is, “The shorter read- 
ing is to be preferred.”’) 

The cases which we have noticed are instructive in other 
ways. When critically examined, they demonstrate the 
superlative value of such MSS. as ΒΝ, Z, D, L, C, and a 
in the Gospel of Mark, in questions of omission or addition, 
as compared with the mass of the later uncials and cursives. 
They show that certain cursives are also of exceptional 
value in such questions. They illustrate in some measure 
the process by which the character of our different witnesses 
may be tested. We find that their character is often differ- 
ent in different books of the New Testament. We find that 
the value of their testimony depends much on the nature 
of the reading. We perceive that they fall more or less 
distinctly into certain groups, representing certain tenden- 
cies, and that this consideration is often important in weigh- 
ing evidence. But these and other matters can only be 
hinted at. Other classes of readings, which would also serve 
to test the relative value and bring out the characteristics of 
our different authorities, must be wholly passed over, at least 
for the present, as this paper has already reached an inordi- 
nate length. 


XII. 


ON THE READING “ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD,’ 
IN JOHN I. 18. 


WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE STATEMENTS 
OF DR. TREGELLES:* 


[From the Bz3liotheca Sacra for October, 186r.] 


Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε. ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός [4]. θεός], 6 Ov εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ 
πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. 


In John i. 18, which reads in the common version: “ No 
man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, 
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him,” 
it has long been known to scholars that important critical 
authorities, instead of the expression ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, “the 
only-begotten Sox,” have the remarkable reading μονογενὴς 
Beee, “only-bepotten God.” The MSS, that contain 1, 
though not numerous, are of the very highest rank, in- 
cluding both the famous Vatican MS. and the newly dis- 
covered Codex Sznaiticus of Tischendorf. This reading is 
also found in several of the ancient versions, and has been 
supposed to be attested by a great majority of the ancient 
Fathers, both Greek and Latin. Though not adopted into 
the text of any edition of the Greek Testament yet published, 
its genuineness has been maintained by Dr. S. P. Tregelles, 
the most eminent among English scholars in the department 
of textual criticism ; and it will undoubtedly be presented as 
the true reading in his long expected edition. It would also, 
as Dr. Tregelles assures us, have been received by Lachmann 


* An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament; with Analyses, 
etc., of the respective Books,... By the Rev. Thomas Hartwell Horne, B.D. The critical part 
rewritten and the remainder revised and edited by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, LL.D. Second 
Edition. London: Longman, etc., 1860. 8vo. pp. xxvil., 8or; pp. 751-784 being “‘ Additions” 
and “‘ Postscript,” which alone distinguish this from the former edition. These Additions, with the 
Postscript, have also been published separately. 


242 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


into his text, had he been aware of the authorities by which 
it is supported. 

It is evident from this brief statement of the claims of 
the reading μονογενὴς θεός, that the question of its genuineness 
well deserves a critical investigation, while its theological 
character gives it a special interest, which, however, must 
not be suffered to bias our judgment. This investigation 
is the more necessary in consequence of the circumstance 
that, in respect to one very important branch of the evidence, 
—the quotations of the passage by the ancient Fathers, — 
no critical edition of the Greek Testament gives even a 
tolerably complete and accurate account of the facts in the 
case. On the contrary, the most important editions which 
have been published since the time of Wetstein, as those of 
Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf, and Alford, not only neglect 
to state a very large part of the evidence, but contain almost 
incredible errors in regard to the authorities which they 
professedly cite.* Many of these errors were repeated by 
Dr. Tregelles in his remarks on the passage in his Account 
of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament (London, 
1854), in which he maintained the genuineness of the reading 
θεός ἡ His observations led to an examination of the evi- 
dence on the subject~by the present writer, the results of 
which were published in a Note appended to the second 
edition of Mr. Norton’s Statement of Reasons for not 
believing the Doctrines of Trinttarians (Boston, 1856), pp. 
448-460. : 

I cannot better introduce the discussion proposed in the 
present article than by quoting from the Note just referred 
to a statement of some of the conclusions arrived at. After 
mentioning the fact that Wetstein, in his note on the pas- 
sage, has fallen into extraordinary errors, many of which 
have been blindly copied by subsequent editors, it was 
observed : — 


*In his recent edition of the Greek Testament, Zdztio septima critica major, Lips. 1859, 
Tischendorf has considerably corrected and enlarged his former account of the evidence of the 
Fathers on this passage. But his note is still very defective, and contains important mistakes. 


t See pp. 234, 235- 


ON THE READING “ ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD ”’ 243 
᾿ς 

One who should take the statements in Wetstein’s note to be correct, 
would suppose that not less than forty-four Greek and Latin writers, in 
the first eight centuries, have quoted the passage in question with the 
reading μονογενὴς θεός, or unzgenitus Deus; and that the number of distinct 
quotations of this kind in their writings, taken together, is not far from 
one hundred and thirty. 1 have examined with some care all the passages 
specifically referred to by Wetstein, and the whole work, or collection of 
works, cited, when his reference is general, —as “ Epzphanius duodecies,” 
“ffilarius de Trinit. passim,” “ /7/gentius plusquam vicies,” not confining 
my attention, however, to these particular passages or works. The fol- 
lowing is the result of this examination. Of the forty-four writers cited 
by Wetstein in support of the reading μονογενὴς θεός, there are but four 
who quote or refer to the passage with this reading only;* four quote it 
with both readings; f ze quote it with the reading υἱός͵ or filzws, only, 
except that in one of the quotations of Titus of Bostra υἱὸς θεός occurs ; ¢ 
two repeatedly al/ude to it, — sometimes using the phrase “only-begotten 
God,” and sometimes “only-begotten Soz,” in connection with the words 
“who is in the bosom of the Father,’ — but do not distinctly guoée it ; || 
and ¢wenty-five do not quote or allude to it at all.** Of the particular 
passages referred to by Wetstein, a great majority have no bearing what- 
ever on the subject, but merely contain the expression μονογενὴς θεός, or 
unigenitus Deus, with no trace of an allusion to the text in question, — 
an expression often occurring, as will hereafter appear, in writers who 
abundantly and unequivocally gwofe John i. 18 with the reading υἱός, or 
jilius. Indeed, in some of these passages we do not find even this expres- 
sion, but only the term γενητὸς [al. γεννητὸς θεός͵ or genttus Deus, applied 
to Christ.tt Sufficient evidence that these assertions are not made at 
random will be given in what follows, though the mistakes of Wetstein 
cannot here be all pointed out in detail. 

We may now examine the witnesses brought forward by Dr. Tregelles. 
... Of the twenty-five writers whom he has adduced in support of the 
reading μονογενὴς θεός͵ but four, I believe, can be relied on with much 
confidence, and even their testimony is far from unexceptionable ; ¢iree 
may be regarded as doubtful; ezg#¢ really support the common reading ; 


* “Tt is thus quoted in the Axcerpta Theodotz, and also by Clement of Alexandria and Epipha- 
nius. It appears to be once referred to in the Epistle of the second Synod of Ancyra.” 


{ ‘Irenzus, Origen, Basil, and Cyril of Alexandria.” 

t ‘“‘ Eusebius, Athanasius, Julian, Gregory Nazianzen, Titus of Bostra, Maximinus the Arian 
bishop, Hilary, Vigilius of Tapsa, Alcuin.” 

||“ Gregory of Nyssa and Fulgentius.” 

** “That is, all the remaining authorities cited by Wetstein, for which see his note.” 

tt “‘ As in the following: ‘Orvzgenes in Psalm. i. ap. Epiphanium,’ see Epiphanius, Wae~. lxiv. 
c. 7, Opp. i. 531b, or Origen, Opp. ii. 526e; ‘ Eusebzus D. iv. 2,’ z2.e., Dem. Evang. \ib. iv. c. 2; 
‘Prudentzus in Apotheosi,’ viz. line 895; ‘Claudzanus Mamert. de statu animae, |. 2,’ where lib. 
i. c. 2 must be the place intended.” 


244 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


two merely allude to the passage; and eég#t have neither quoted nor 
alluded to it. * 

These statements were supported by a detailed exposition 
of the facts in the case, accompanied in every instance by 
precise references to the passages in the Fathers bearing on 
the subject. In addition to the correction of these enormous 
errors in respect to the evidence alleged for the reading θεός, 
I produced, as the result of original investigation, quotations 
of the passage, supporting the reading υἱός, from no less than 
eighteen Greek and szx Latin ecclesiastical writers, whose 
testimony had never before been adduced to this purpose in 
any critical edition of the Greek Testament, — twelve or 
thirteen of them belonging to the third and fourth centuries. 
The examination made of the works of the Fathers enabled 
me also to give the evidence much more fully and accurately 
than had before been done in the case of many other writers 
who fad been cited, on one side or the other, in editions 
of the Greek Testament. In this exposition of the evidence I 
was scrupulously careful to mention not only every quotation 
of the passage which I had found with the reading θεός, but 
every allusion to it which might be imagined to favor this 
reading, even in cases where it seemed clear that no real 
argument could be founded on these allusions. 

In the Postscript to the second edition of his /xtroduction 
to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (pp. 780, 781), 
Dr. Tregelles has taken notice of my remarks on this pas- 
sage, which “ have led,” as he says, “to a re-examination of 
the whole of the evidence.” After exhibiting the authorities 
for the different readings, he says in a note : — 


In this one instance I have given at length the evidence for and 
against the reading, so as to show what authorities do really support 
μονογενὴς θεος and what uphold μονογενὴς vioc. The statement is here given 
just as it stands in my Greek Testament, with the precise references to the 
Patristic citations. 


The conclusion to which he comes is thus expressed : — 


It appears to be most clear that not only is μονογενὴς θεος the ancient 
reading of MSS. and some versions, but also of the Fathers generally ; 


* Norton’s Statement of Reasons, etc., Appendix, Note C, pp. 451-453. 


ON THE READING “ ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD ” 245 


for those that have both readings in the present copies of their works, 
evidently do support that which is not in the Zetex Greek Text, with which 
those who copied their writings were familiar; and the doubtful passages 
must give way to the express mentions of θεὸς by the same writers as the 
reading in this place. 


Here a regard for the truth compels me to state some 
facts which may give an unfavorable impression concerning 
Dr. Tregelles’s character for fairness and accuracy. No one 
can regret this more than myself; and in simple justice to 
a scholar whose services to Biblical criticism have been so 
valuable, and who has often shown himself superior to the 
influence of dogmatic prejudice, I must beg the reader not 
to regard his note on John i. 18 as a specimen of his usual 
manner of dealing with evidence. 

Dr. Tregelles, it will be observed, professes to give at 
length the testimony for and against the reading θεός. In 
doing this, he does not confine himself to the chronological 
limit generally observed in his Greek Testament, so far as 
the Fathers are concerned, but comes down to the latter 
part of the eighth century, including the latest author 
(namely, Alcuin) who has ever been cited in favor of the 
reading “ only-begotten God.” He leads us to expect a full 
and accurate statement of the evidence on both sides, which, 
in a case like this, it was unquestionably his duty to give. 
How is it, then, in reality ? 

I answer that, for some cause which I do not pretend to 
explain, his account of the evidence is deceptive and un- 
trustworthy.’ He has omitted to mention the greater part 
of the facts in the case, though they were placed directly 
before his eyes. In stating the evidence for the reading 
θεός, it is true, he has not been guilty of the sin of omission. 
On the contrary, he not only appears to have availed himself 
very freely of the matter which I had for the first time 
collected that seemed to favor that reading, even copying 
my references, in one instance at least, without verifica- 
tion,* but he has repeated many mistakes in the evidence 


*T had cited the Dialogue of Cyril, Quod Unus sit Christus, Opp. Tom. V. P. i. p. 786e, 
for the reading θεός, The reference should have been to p. 768¢ instead of p. 786e. Dr. Tregelles 


246 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


alleged for this reading after they had been clearly pointed 
out. He has referred, in various instances, to places in 
different authors where John i. 18 is not quoted or even 
alluded to, but which merely contain the erpresszon μονογενὴς 
θεός, or untgenittus Deus, applied to Christ by the writer, and 
has intermixed these references indiscriminately with those 
to actual gwotations, thus leading the unwary reader to sup- 
pose them to denote quotations, and to attach to them undue 
weight. 

But how fares the evidence on the other side? The 
answer to this question may well astonish the reader. Of 
the f¢wenty-three Greek and ¢hzrteen Latin writers whom I 
had cited as supporting the reading υἱός, giving in every 
case exact references to their quotations of the passage, Dr. 
Tregelles notices only seven. Of the twenty-nine witnesses 
whom he thus ignores, at least ¢wemty-s7r are as ancient as 
Alcuin, whom he cites, though erroneously, in favor of the 
reading ‘“only-begotten God”; and a great majority of them 
belong to the third and fourth centuries. Even this is not 
all. His exhibition of the testimony of the authorities 
which he does cite as containing the reading υἱός is far from 
complete. See the note below.* 


has copied this mtstake tu reference, though an examination would have shown that the treatise 
ends on p- 778. 

The only acknowledgment made by Dr. Tregelles of any indebtedness to my researches on 
this passage is the following: ‘‘ He points out rightly that I had incorrectly alleged Phebadius 
for the reading ovo) ενὴς θεός (an error which originated, I believe, in revising in the proof- 
sheet the name which had been intended for Prudentzus).”’ This statement has not mended the 
matter. PrudentZus has not only never quoted John i. 18 with the reading uxzgenztus Deus, but 
has never used this exfvesszon even, in any part of his writings. As to Phedadzus, I not only 
pointed out the fact that the same remark was true of him, but that he had expressly quoted the 
passage with the reading unigenztus filius (Contra Arianos, c.12). Of this, Dr. Tregelles, in his 
account of the evidence, takes no notice. Why should he not be as ready to adduce the testimony 
of Pheebadius on one side as the other? 


* For the convenience of Dr. Tregelles, and those of his readers who may happen to see this 
article, I will here point out in order some of the principal errors and defects in his note on John 
i. 18. A fuller discussion of various questions will be given hereafter. 

Authorities ctted for the reading μονογενὴς θεός. 

Lines 4,5. “Ογζρ. Int. iv. 924.” Τὸ be omitted. Merely an instance of the use of the 
expression ‘‘ unigenitus Deus Salvator noster,” without any reference to John i. 18. 

Line 5. ‘“Warcel. ap. Eus. τοῦ. To be omitted for a similar reason. Eusebius simply says 
of a letter of Marcellus, containing his creed : Té) page πιστεύειν εἰς πατέρα θεὸν παντοκρά- 
τορα, καὶ εἰς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ θεόν, τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν, καὶ 
εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, 


ON THE READING ‘“‘ ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD ” 247 


Under such circumstances, no apology can be necessary 
for offering a restatement of the evidence for the various 


Lines 5, 6. “ Zvs.c. ΜΟΙ. 674. ὁ μονογ. υἱὸς ἢ μονογ. θεός." This should be quoted with 
the context, τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ διαρρήδην αὐτὸν υἱὸν μονογενῆ εἶναι διδάσκοντος δι᾽ 
ὧν ἔφη, Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε: ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ἢ μονογενὴς θεός, ὁ ὧν εἰς τὸν 
κόλπον, κ.τ.λ., which makes it, I think, evident that the words ἢ Lovoy. θεός are a marginal 
gloss which has crept into the text; and that the proper place for the reference is among the 
authorities for ovo) EVIC υἱός, where fzve other places are cited, in which Eusebius has expressly 
quoted the passage with this reading. Cf. p. 259. 

Line 6. ‘‘ Aus. c. Mcl. 124¢. θεὸν δὲ καὶ μονογενῆ." Irrelevant. Eusebius simply says 
here that Christ is represented by the Evangelist ‘‘as God azd only-begotten,” zo¢ only-begotten 
God, ‘‘ inasmuch as he alone was truly the Son of the God over all.” 

léid. ‘* Hil, 1124¢ seq.,” etc. To be omitted. The passage is not a quotation of John i. 18, 
except so far as the words “‘in sinu patris est” are concerned, as was shown in the Appendix to 
Norton’s Statement of Reasons, p. 465, note, and will be fully shown below. Cf. p. 263 sq. The 
stress of Hilary’s argument, such as it is, rests wholly on the word est. The “εἰ in sequentibus 
saepe” which Dr. Tregelles adds is altogether deceptive, as it will naturally be understood to 
signify that Hilary has ‘‘ often” quoted John i. 18 with the reading wxzgenztus Deus. The truth 
is, that he has zever quoted the passage with this reading, but has, on the contrary, expressly 
quoted it seve times with the reading /£/77s ; and not only so, but has cowezented upon it in such 
a way (De Trin. lib. vi. c. 39) as to demonstrate beyond question that he thus read the passage. 

Lines 18, 19. “* Epzst. Synodt Ancyranae 28 [2486] ap. Epiph.. . . Haer. Ixxiii. 8 (i. 854¢).” 
It is quite proper to adduce this among the authorities which favor the reading θεός, but as it is 
not an express quotation of the passage, it would be more accurate to add the Greek: ὁ δὲ [sc. 
Ἰωάννης] Tow θεοῦ τὸν λόγον μονογενῆ θεὸν... φησί. The imprudence of a confident 
reliance on references of this kind was illustrated in the Appendix to Norton’s Statement of Rea- 
SONS, PP. 454, 455, note, and will be shown below. Cf. p. 254, et seqq. 

Line 23. ‘‘ Cyr. Alex. V. p. i. 786¢.” For 786€ read 768e. 

Ibid. “‘ Fulgentius interdum.” Dede. Fulgentius has never quoted the passage. His allu- 
sions to it were given in full in the ‘‘ Appendix” just referred to, and will be again exhibited below. 
Chery. 257: 

Lines 23, 24. ‘‘ Zszdorus Pel. 6. iii. 95 (ap. Wetst.).” Dele. Isidore of Pelusium has no- 
where quoted or alluded to John i. 18. The passage referred to by Wetstein, as was pointed out 
in the Appendix to Norton’s Statement of Reasons, p. 460, note, contains merely the expresszon 
* only-begotten God,” —6 μονογενὴς γοῦν θεὸς ἐπιδημήσας, φησί, κιτ.λ. This is the only 
place in his writings in which Isidore uses even this expression. 

Lines 24-29. ‘* Scriptores Graeci et Latini saepissime habent verba μονογενῆὴς θεός, unigenz- 
tus Deus, tanquam nomen Jesu in Scriptura tributum; e.g., Greg. Vyss. saepissime, Greg. Vaz., 
Bas. Sel., Artus, Luctanus (5. Pseudo-Luc.), nec non Lxnomzus, Tit. Bostr., Gaudentius, 
Ferrandus, Prudentius, Vigilfus, Alcutnus, etc.; quod ab hoc loco ut videtur pendet.” Here 
it is to be observed: 1. That it is not pretended that any of these writers gwofes the passage in 
question with the reading ‘‘only-begotten God”, on the other hand, four of them, Greg. Vaz., 
Tit. Bostr., Vigilius, and Alcuin, do expressly quote it with the reading ‘‘ only-begotten Sox.” 
2. Two of them, 7ztus of Bostra and Prudentius, have never even used the phrase “ only- 
begotten God”’ in their published works. 3. Four of the remainder, Bas. Sel., Artus, Lucianus 
(or Pseudo-Luc.), and Gaudentzus, instead of employing this expression “‘ saepzsszvze,” have 
used it but omce each, in their extant writings; and it occurs very rarely, perhaps only once, in 
those of Gregory Nazianzen. 4. None of the writers named speak of it as ‘‘ applied to Jesus in 
Scripture,” except Gregory Nyssen; and his assertion, as I shall show, is very poor evidence 
that he ever found it there. Cf. pp. 255, 256. 


Authorities cited for the reading μονογενὴς υἱός. 


Line 29. After ‘‘ 1.”’ insert “‘69.,”” a manuscript of great value, ranking with 1. and 33. 

Line 31. Add “ Zvez. 189 (unigenitus filius Dei), et vid. seqq.” Add also ‘‘Orzg. iv. 1024, 
ὁ μ. υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ap. De la Rue, ὁ μ. υἱὸς θεός ap. Huet.; cf. ὁ μ. υἱὸς θεός. Clem. 956. 
Orig. Int. iii. gt®, unigenitus Dei filius.” 


248 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


readings of the passage in question. In doing this, I may 
be pardoned for saying, that so far as the testimony of the 
Fathers is concerned, nothing whatever will be given at 
second hand. When it is affirmed that a particular Father 
has not quoted John i. 18, or has never used in his writings 
even the expression μονογενὴς θεός, or, On the other hand, that 
he as used it a certain number of times, the statement 
is founded on a personal examination of the whole of his 
published works. It would be presumptuous to assert that 
in this examination, extending over so wide a field, nothing 
has escaped my notice; I can only say that I have aimed 
at accuracy, and have had no object but to ascertain the 
truth. The new note of Dr. Tregelles has added nothing to 
the evidence which was presented in the Appendix to Nor- 
ton’s Statement of Reasons, except one reference to Didymus 
of Alexandria, confirming the two citations which I had 
given from him in favor of the reading θεός ; Ἐ and, on the 
other side, the fact (already mentioned in Tischendorf’s last 
edition of the Greek Testament), that the Aethiopic version, 
as edited by Mr. Platt, supports the reading υἱός, The very 
few other apparent additions are merely errors. 

I may here advert to an extraordinary statement in the 
note of Dr. Tregelles, which, if correct, would make this 
whole investigation on my part an absurdity. He says: 


Line 32. For ‘‘ 197” read “‘ 297.” 

Line 33. Dede ‘‘123b.’’ There is no reference here to John i. 18. 

Line 34. Insert among the references to H77., ‘‘ 799@,” and for ‘‘ 852e” read “‘ 8520." 

7024. For “vid. Tert. adv. Prax. 8” read “‘ Tert. adv. Prax. 15.” Dr. Tregelles omzts the 
place where Tertullian has quoted the passage with the reading wzZgenztus filius, and refers 
instead to a place where he has merely alluded to it in such a way as not to determine the 
reading. 

lbid. For ‘‘ Athanas.,” which is out of place, read “" Athanas. i. 219¢ (diserte), 2274, 5304, 
6388 (dis.); cf. 628ef, 6314, 634f, 6358, ed. Benedict.” Athanasius quotes the passage four times, 
twice commenting on the word vioc, and refers to it in three other places in such a way as to 
show, in each of them, that he unquestionably read υἱός, 

Within the chronological period to which Dr. Tregelles has confined himself, namely, the first 
eight centuries, I shall further adduce in support of the reading ‘‘ only-begotten Sox,” the testi- 
mony of not less than ¢/z7¢y writers whom he has not mentioned; to which, for the sake of com- 
pleteness, will be added that of ten others of later date. 


* Not having been able to procure at that time the treatise of Didymus, De Trzxztate, I was 
compelled to cite it at second hand from the work of Guericke, De Schola quae Alexandriae 
Jfiorutt catechetica, carefully stating, however, this fact ina note. Didymus was the only author 
thus cited. 


ON THE READING “ ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD ”’ 249 


“Mr. Abbot has entirely failed in his endeavour to show 
that Patristic citations are wholly a matter of uncertainty ” 
(p. 781). There is not the slightest ground in my Note for 
ascribing to me such a preposterous “ endeavor.” I did 
endeavor to show tat the evidence of some of Dr. Tregelles’s 
“Patristic citations” was very uncertain ; I called attention 
to the indisputable fact that several of his principal authori- 
ties were notorious for the general looseness and inaccuracy 
of their quotations; I pointed out the importance of care- 
fully distinguishing express c7/atious of a passage from mere 
allusions or references to it; and I proved that it was not 
always safe to rely on the assertion of a Father that a 
particular expression was found in scripture,’ But Rican 
assure Dr. Tregelles that had I endeavored “to show bs 
Patristic citations are wholly a matter of uncertainty,” I 
should not have taken pains to adduce ezg/ty of them, from 
thirty-six different writers, in opposition to the reading which 
he defends as genuine. The evidence of the Fathers in 
regard to various readings always needs to be carefully 
weighed and sifted; the references to it in all critical edi- 
tions of the Greek Testament hitherto published are very 
incomplete and often untrustworthy ; but it is frequently of 
ereat importance. 


We will now examine the evidence for the reading μονογενὴς 
θεός as compared with that for μονογενὴς υἱός. The testimony 
of the Greek MSS. is first to be considered. It is here 
important to observe that the words υἱός and θεός in the abbre- 
viated form in which they are written in the most ancient 
codices (¥C, 60), differ in but a single letter, so that one might 
easily be substituted for the other through the inadvertence 
of a transcriber. 

The reading θεός is found in the MSS. s*, B, GP 1h, 33 Only 
five in number, but three of them of the highest antiquity, 
and all of great value. δὶ, the Codex Sznazticus, which has 
the reading a prima manu, was probably written, according 
to Tischendorf,* about the middle of the fourth century ; B, 


*In his Wottt7a Codicis Sinaitic? Tischendorf gave the reading of δὲ on this passage thus: — 


250 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


the Vatican MS., is of nearly the same age; C, the Ephraem 
MS., is about a century later; L is of the eighth century, 
but remarkable for its affinity with the Vatican and the 
Ephraem ; and 33 is a cursive MS. of the eleventh century, 
also very remarkable for its agreement with our oldest copies. 
It is one of the three cursive MSS. which read & in 1 Tim. 
His TO: 

The reading υἱός, on the other hand, is found in x**, A, 
Gee is, EF, Gs: HL, ΚΝ Vik Aah alco. aia ie ee 
and all the other cursive MSS. containing the passage (so 
far as is known), amounting to four or five hundred in 
number, but many of them imperfectly collated.- »** denotes 
the Codex Sinaiticus as corrected; A is the Alexandrine 
MS., of the fifth century ; C*** denotes the Ephraem MS. 
as corrected in the ninth century; X and 4 are MSS. of 
the latter part of the ninth century, but distinguished from 
the others of that period by their more frequent agreement 
with the most ancient documents; this is particularly true 
of «X, the text of which is of greatiexcellence.. Thefother 
uncial MSS. range in date from the eighth century to the 
tenth; a and69' are ‘cursive MSS. the first of ‘the wtenthy 
the second of the fourteenth century, but of uncommon 
value on account of the accordance of their text with that 
of our oldest copies; a remark which applies, in a some- 
what inferior degree, to a considerable number of others, 
especially 13, 22, 118, 124,57, aud s20e: 

The concurrence of three out of our four most ancient 
MSS. in the reading θεύς is remarkable ; but some cir- 
cumstances may lessen its apparent weight. The testimony 
of x, which has the reading a prima manu, cannot be prop- 
erly estimated till we know something respecting the date 
, of the correction, which possesses an authority, of course, 
equalto that of a MS. at thevtime it) was) madenm ihe 
alterations which x has undergone are by many different 


“Ὁ Johannis 1. 18, a pr μονογενῆς (absque 9) θεὸς εἰς (om. ο ων). I took the ‘‘a pr” to apply 
to a// the variations from the received text, not merely the first and last. Dr. Tregelles before me 
had fallen into the same error. See Postscrzpts to his [ntrod. to the Text. Crit. of the N. T., 
2d ed., p. 780 (dated Nov. 1, 1860). The Sinaitic MS. was first pudlzshed in 1862. 


ON THE READING “ ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD” 251 


hands, but Tregelles remarks (p. 784) that ‘it will appar- 
ently be found that one at least of these has carefully cor- 
rected the errors of the original scribe; indeed it seems not 
improbable that such a corrector may have been the person 
whose business it was to revise what had been written by a 
mere mechanical copyist. For a full apprehension of the 
value, etc., of the corrections, we must wait the appearance 
of Tischendorf’s edition.” Should it appear that the origi- 
nal διορθωτής, or a very early corrector, altered the reading 
of x from θεός to υἱός, the importance of its testimony to the 
former would be greatly diminished, or even nullified; on 
the other hand, if the change was made by a date corrector, 
the alteration would be of little consequence. That the 
original transcriber was careless or sleepy when he copied 
John i. 18 is evident from the fact that he has omitted the 
words ὁ ὧν before εἰς τὸν κόλπον. Another circumstance may 
be regarded as weakening in some measure the authority of 
x*, B, C*, L, in this passage. They all agree in reading povo- 
γενὴς θεός instead of ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. It seems hardly possible 
that this omission of the article can be correct; but, if this 
be an error, it throws some suspicion on the reading which 
accompanies it. 

The balance of evidence in the case of the MSS. will be 
estimated differently by different critics according to the 
school to which they belong. Tregelles would attribute 
greater weight than Tischendorf to the preponderance of 
the few most ancient MSS. in favor of θεός, while Mr. Scrivener 
would lay greater stress than either on the testimony of the 
later uncials and cursives. It may be sufficient to say here 
that the united testimony of the MSS. of the ninth century 
and later, though numbered by hundreds, cannot disprove 
the genuineness of a reading which is supported by a great 
preponderance of the more ancient evidence; and, on the 
other hand, that the coincidence of the MSS. x, B, C, L, ina 
reading, though entitled to grave consideration, is far from 
being decisive. The testimony of several of the ancient 
versions and Fathers goes further back than that of our oldest 
MSS. ; and that of the versions, in particular, is of great 


1 


252 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


importance in cases like the present, where, from the simi- 
larity of the questionable words in the Greek, a transcriber 
might easily mistake one for the other. 

We will proceed, then, to examine the evidence of the 
ancient versions. The following support θεός: (1) the Peshito 
Syriac, which has been assigned to the second century, 
but the text of which is regarded by Dr. Tregelles and 
others as having been greatly corrupted and modernized, 
especially in the Gospels, by a later revision;* (2) the 
Harclean or Philoxenian Syriac (A.D. 616) in the margin ; 
(3) the Coptic or Memphitic (third or fourth century) ; and 
(4) the Aethiopic (fourth or fifth century) in the Roman 
edition. 

The following support vide: (1) the Old Latin or Italic, of 
the second century; (2) the Vulgate, of the fourth; (3) the 
Curetonian Syriac, probably of the second century ;+ (4) the 
Harclean or Philoxenian Syriac (A.D. 616) in the ext, (5) 
the Jerusalem Syriac, of uncertain date, but representing a 
very ancient text ; (6) the Aethiopic (fourth or fifth century), 
as edited in 1826 by Mr. Platt; and (7) the Armenian, of the 
fifth century. 

It will be perceived that the weight of authority, so far as 
the ancient versions are concerned, greatly preponderates in 
favor of the reading vids. The evidence of the Old Latin and 
the Curetonian Syriac is particularly important. 

The testimony of the azczent Fathers is next to be attended 
to. We will examine the evidence: (1) of those who favor 
θεός; (2) of those who favor vide; and (3) of a few who have 
quoted the passage with doth readings, and may be regarded 
as doubtful. I add, for convenience, the time at which they 
flourished as assigned by Cave. 

I. The following favor the reading θεός : ---- 

1. Clement of Alexandria, a.p. 194, who has once quoted 
the passage with this reading (Stromat. lib. v. c. 12, p. 695, 


* See his Jnutrod. to Textual Criticism, pp. 265, 266; comp. p. 757: 

+ Of this version Dr. Tregelles observes that “its readings are in far greater accordance with 
the oldest authorities of various kinds than is the case in the previously known Peshito.” 7624. 
p. 267. It has been printed from a MS. of the fifth century. 


ON THE READING “ ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD” 253 


ed. Potter). This evidence is, however, somewhat weakened 
by the fact, that in another place, in alluding to the text, he 
has the words ὁ μονογενὴς vide θεός, “the only-begotten Son, who 
is God.” * He does not comment on the passage, in either 
case, in such a way as to show how he read it; and as 
Dr. Tregelles has remarked (p. 333), “he often gives his own 
phrases instead of those of any writer whom he may cite.” 
Indeed, he is one of the most remarkable among the Fathers 
for the looseness of his quotations from scripture. 

2. The Excerpta Theodoti, or Doctrina Orientalis. This 
is a compilation of uncertain authorship, but supposed by 
many to have been made by Clement of Alexandria, with 
whose works it is generally printed. ‘Theodotus” is several 
times cited in it, but more frequently “the followers of 
Malentinus.” The quotation of John 1, τῷ occurs invan 
account of the manner in which the Valentinians understood 
and explained the first chapter of John. It is a very impor- 
tant testimony to the reading θεός, both on account of its high 
antiquity, and because it is express: ἄντικρυς θεὸν αὐτὸν δηλοῖ λέγων, 
Ὁ μονογενὴς θεός͵ ὁ ὧν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. T 

3. Epiphanius, Bp. of Constantia or Salamis in Cyprus, 
A.D. 368, has quoted the passage three times with the reading 
ΠΩΣ). IxVv.'C. τὸ d7s, and bases 7 (Opp; ior -and 
818°, ed. Petav.) In the remark, however, which follows the 
quotation in the first passage, θεός and υἱός are interchanged : 
Kai φησι, Ὃ μονογενὴς θεός - ὁ μὲν yap λόγος ἐστὶν ἐκ πατρὸς γεννηθείς, 6 πατὴρ δὲ 
οὐκ ἐγεννήθη: διὰ τοῦτο μονογενὴς υἱός, He also speaks of John as 
“calling Christ only-begotten God” : Μονογενῆ θεὸν αὐτὸν φάσκων... 
Περὶ πατρὸς γέγραπται, ἀληθινοῦ θεοῦ περὶ υἱοῦ dé, ὅτε μονογενὴς θεός (4 ncorat. 
c. 3, Opp. ii. δ) A little before, however, in a guwotation 
of John 1. 18, ὁ μονογενής is given without either θεός or υἱός. But 
here the context renders it probable that θεός has been omitted 
after povoyevf¢ by the mistake of a transcriber, though the 


Ἐκαὶ τότε ἐποπτείσεις TOV κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ὃν ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς θεὸς μόνος ἐξ- 
ηγήσατο. — Quis dives saluetur, Cc. 37, p- 956. 

t Excerpta Theodot.c.6, ap. Clem. Alex. Opp. p. 968, ed. Potter; also in Fabrzcz? Bzbl. 
Graec. v. 136, and in Bunsen’s Analecta Ante-Nicaena, i. 211. 


254 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


text, both in what precedes and follows, appears to be 
corrupt.* 

4. Didymus of Alexandria, A.D. 370, has quoted the passage 
twice with the reading θεύς. (De Trénit. lib. i. Ὁ. 26, and lib. 
li. c. 5, pp. 76, 140, ed. Mingarel., or in Migne’s Patrol. 
Gracca, χχχῖχ. 393", 495°.) He also says, ὁ υἱὸς κέκληται μονογενὴς 
θεὸς λόγος, Kai εἰς κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, (Lbzd. lib. 1. α. 15, p. 27, or 
col. 313°, ed. Migne.) But here it may be doubted whether a 
comma should be placed after μονογενής, or after θεός, or after 
neither.f 

The four writers whose testimony has now been adduced 
are all who have expressly quoted John i. 18 with the reading 
μονογενὴς θεός alone, and are all who can be cited in its support 
with much confidence. There are four others who have 
quoted the passage with doth readings; namely, Irenzus, 
Origen, Basil the Great, and Cyril of Alexandria. The first 
of these favors υἱός; the last, perhaps, θεός while the two 
remaining are altogether doubtful. Their evidence will be 
considered hereafter. 

There are, however, some alluszons and references to the 
passage which may be supposed to favor the reading θεός, but 
in regard to which there is room for a difference of opinion. 
A statement of the facts will enable the reader to form his 

wn judgment. 

1. The Second (semi-Arian) Synod of Ancyra, a.p. 358, 
may have read θεός in John i. 18, but the evidence is not 
decisive. After quoting ‘Prov, vii 25. Εἰ Colic, ws nctes 
and the first verses of the Proem to the Gospel of John, 
without any allusion, however, to John i. 18, the Fathers of 
this Synod state their conclusion as follows: “So that we 
have testimony ‘from the mouth of two or three witnesses’ 


* After having quoted and remarked upon John xvii. 3, Epiphanius says: ᾿Τησοῦν Χριστὸν 
τίνα; ἀληθινὸν θεόν. Hi δὲ θεὸν Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν, ὡς λέγει περὶ αὐτοῦ ὁ ᾿Ιωάννης, Ὁ 
μονογενής, ὁ Ov εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, αὐτὸς ἐξηγήσατο. ic θεὸς τοίνυν ὁ 
πατῆρ, kK, τ. ἅ. --- « ιεογαΐέ. c.2,p.7¢, Here εἰ δέ must be wrong unless the whole conclusion 
of the sentence has been lost. Perhaps we should substitute οἷδε (comp. 8.521. de 5227. Sanct. 


c. 8, p. 140) or οἴδατε, though ἢδὲ may seem at first an easier emendation. 


+ [Later Dr. Abbot added in pencil] Better after neither; cf. [OVOYEVAC θεὸς λόγος, lib. i. 
c. 26, p. 75 (392 Migne), quoted by Mr. Drummond. [Cf. p. 273 below.] 


ON THE READING ‘‘ ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD” 255 


in proof that the substance of the Son is like that of the 
Father; for one [Solomon] calls the wisdom of the [all-] 
Wise his Son; another [John] calls the Logos of God only- 
begotten God; another [Paul] calls the Son cf God his. 
Image.” * We have no reason to suppose, a priori, that the 
reference to John is verbally accurate any more than that to 
Proverbs, where we find neither the word υἱός, nor the expres- 
‘sion ἡ σοφία τοῦ σοφοῦ, It is not uncommon with the Fathers to 
give, as the language of scripture, expressions formed from 
several passages combined, or which they regard as fully 
authorized by scripture, though not occurring there in so 
many words. The Logos being called “God” in John i. 1, 
and the Son being called “the only-begotten” in John i. 18, 
nothing was more natural than that they should unite the 
two passages, and speak of John as calling the Logos “the 
only-begotten God.” This would be done the more readily 
by many of the Fathers, as they regarded the terms “Son” 
and ‘only-begotten” as necessarily implying a participation 
of the Divine nature, and as in themselves justifying the 
appellation θεός. Thus the Epistle of this Synod says, a little 
after the passage just cited, υἱὸς θεὸς μέν, καθὸ υἱὸς θεοῦ, ὡς ἄνθρωπος, 
καθὺ υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου. (Cap. 9, p. 855", ap. Epiph.) So Eusebius 
says that Christ is τοῦ θεοῦ μονογενὴς υἱός, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο θεός (Dem. 
Evang. lib. v. c. 4, p. 227°), and an indefinite number of pas- 
sages might be quoted to the same purpose. 

2. In one place Gregory of Nyssa (A.D. 370) says: Eipyra 
παρὰ τῆς γραφῆς περὶ τοῦ ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντος λόγου, ὅτι ὁ μονογενὴς θεός͵ πρωτότοκος 
πάσης κτίσεως, (De Perf. Christ. Forma. Opp. iii. 291%.) Some 
may regard this as a clear proof that Gregory read θεός in 
John i. 18. One, however, who has become accustomed to 
the style in which scripture is quoted and referred to in the 
writings of the Fathers, will be more likely to regard it as 
affording but a slight presumption of the fact in question; a 
presumption altogether outweighed by the consideration that 


ἘῺὩς ἔχειν τὴν ἐπὶ στόματος dio ἢ τριῶν μαρτύρων [{- μαρτυρίαν, Petav.] εἰς ἀπό- 
δειξιν τῆς. κατ’ οὐσίαν πρὸς πατέρα τοῦ υἱοῦ ὁμοιότητος. Ὁ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ; σοφοῦ τὴν 
σοφίαν υἱόν" ὁ δὲ τοῦ; θεοῦ τὸν λόγον πονογενῇ θεόν. ὁ δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν υἱὸν εἰκόνα 
φησί. -- Αια Epiphan. Haer. \xxiii. c. 8, Opp. i. 854be; or Conczlia, ed. Coleti, ii. 872). 


256 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


he has nowhere expressly quoted the passage, though the 
deity of Christ is so prominent a subject in his writings. If 
he had actually read θεός in John 1. 18, it would have been a 
testimony too remarkable to be overlooked. It is not easy 
to perceive why he should not have quoted this passage as 
often as Johni. 1. But we have not far to seek for an illus- 
tration of the imprudence of a confident reliance on such 
references to scripture as the one before us. Turning back 
a few leaves in this same treatise of Gregory Nyssen we find 
the assertion that, among the names which the Apostle Paul 
has given to Christ, — “ He has called him . . . a propitiation 
for souls, .. . and first-born of the zezw creation, ... and only- 
begotten Son, crowned with glory and honor,” etc.* In 
another place he expressly quotes the words “whom God 
hath set forth as a propitiation for our souls” as the language 
of the apostle.f But it would be idle to suppose that he had 
τῶν ψυχῶν ἡμῶν in his MSS. in Rom. ili. 25, or that his Greek 
‘copies contained the expression “ zez creation”’ in Col. i. 16; 
still more that his copy of the Epistle to the Hebrews con- 
tained the words “ ovzly-begotten Son,” a phrase occurring 
only in the writings of John. The looseness and inaccuracy 
of such references to scripture in the writings of the Fathers 
might be much more fully illustrated. 

Though Gregory of Nyssa has nowhere quoted John 1. 18, 
he has repeatedly alluded to it, using the words ὁ ὧν ἐν τοῖς 
κόλποις τοῦ πατρός etght times in connection with the expression 
ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, {zvece in connection with the phrase ὁ μονογενὴς vide, 
and oxce with the phrase ὁ ἐν ὑψίστοις θεός. For examples and 


ε 


references see below.{ The expression ὁ μονογενὴς θεός is a 


* Avrov ἐκάλεσε... ἱλαστήριον ψυχῶν, ... καὶ τῆς καινῆς κτίσεως TPwTOTOKOD, 
Ν ΒΕ ~ “- ἃς - Ld vA “ . 

. καὶ υἱὸν μονογενῆ, δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφανωμένον͵ κ. τ. λ. -- 26 Perf. Christ. 
Forma, Opp. ili. 276, 277. 

t’Oc [ὁ ἀπόστολος] φησιν. bre ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον TOV ψυχῶν 
ἡμῶν. - De Vita Moszs. Opp. i. 2254, 

t'O μονογενὴς θεός, ὁ ὧν ἐν τοῖς κόλποις TOV πατρός, οὗτός ἐστιν ἡ δεξιὰ τοῦ 
ἑν υίστου. --- De Vita Moszs. Opp. i. τ920. See also 7x Cantic. Home. xiii. Opp. 1. 6634. — Contra 
Enunom. Orat. ii., ter, iii., vi., x. Opp. 11. 4320, 4472, 4784, 506¢, 595 [605], 6818. Lat. wazgenz- 
tus Det filius. (Georg. Trapezuntius.) 


ν es ξ nx 3 - ΄ - , 2 ~ ”. 
ὋὉ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ dv ἐν τοῖς κόλποις τοῦ πατρός, ὁ ἐν ἀρχῇ ὧν, K.T.A,— 


ON THE READING “ ONLY-BEGOTTEN ΟΟΡ ᾿ 257 


favorite designation of Christ in the writings of this Father. 
I have noted one hundred and twenty-five examples of its 
occurrence in his treatise against Eunomius alone. But this 
expression, as we shall see, is also a favorite one with other 
Fathers who unquestionably read “only-begotten Soz”’ in 
John i. 18. 

3. We may here take notice of the allusions to John i. 
18 in the writings of a Latin Father, Fulgentius, who flour- 
ished a.D. 507. They are so instructive as to deserve to 
be quoted in full. Taken together, they show clearly how 
little can be inferred concerning the reading of a passage 
from such allusions, and may serve to guard us against 
hasty conclusions from those of Gregory of Nyssa. See 
the note below.* Neither Fulgentius, nor any other Latin 
Father, has ever guoted John 1. 18 with the reading wnzgenz- 
tus Deus. This is only what might be expected, as both 
the Old Latin version and the Vulgate read /z/zws. But if 
Fulgentius had found the reading Deus in his copies, the 
nature of his writings is such that he could not have failed 
to quote it frequently in proof of the deity of Christ. 

II. The following Greek Fathers, with one Pagan writer, 
support the reading οἷός, ‘They expressly quote the passage 
with this reading, unless the contrary is stated. 

1. Irenzeus, Bp. of Lyons in Gaul, but educated in Asia 


Epist. ad Flavian, Opp. iii. 6488, See also Contra Eunom. Orat. ii. Opp. ii. 466¢. See also 
Orat. x. 6824. 

Ὁ ἐν ὑψίστοις θεός, ὧν ἐν τοῖς κόλποις τοῦ πατρός, K.T.A.— ἦε Cantic. Hom. 
xv. Opp. i. 6972. 

* Fulgentius has alluded to John i. 18 six times. 

1. In connection with the phrase wxzgenztus Deus. ‘ Ut ille unigenitus Deus, qui est in sinu 
Patris, non solum in muliere, sed etiam ex muliere fieret homo.” — 22:2. xvii. c. 3, in Migne’s 
Patrol. \xv. 454¢4, ‘‘ De Deo unigenito, qui est in sinu Patris, ut dixi, omnia hc personaliter 
accipe.” — De Fide, c. 20, col. 681b, ed. Migne. 

2. With wnxigenztus Filius. ‘ Quis enim natus est Deus verus ex Deo vero, nisi unigenitus 
Filius, qui est in sinu Patris?’”” — Ad Tvaszm. lib. iii. c. 4, col. 272b, ““ Si vero unigenitus Filius, 
qui est in sinu Patris, post zternam nativitatem,” etc. (Greg. Nyss. cont. Eunom. lib. x. vol. ii. 
col. 844. Migne is cited by Mr. Drummond as confirming the reading υἱός.) --- Zfzst. xvii. c. 15, 
al. 7 (Gall. 235), Opp. ii. 6822, col. 459¢. ‘* Dei ergo Filius unigenitus, qui est in sinu Patris, ut 
carnem hominis animamque mundaret,” etc. — De F7de, c. 17, col. 670°. 

3. With unzgenztus alone. “Quia unigenitus, qui est in sinu Patris, secundum quod caro est, 
plenus est gratiz,” etc. — De Zncarnat. c. 18, col. 583¢. 

The expresszon “ unigenitus Deus” occurs in the writings of Fulgentius about zze¢y times. 


258 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Minor, fl. a.p. 178. According to the very early Latin 
version in which his work against Heresies has come down 
to us, he has quoted the passage once with the reading Fé/- 
zus, once with Fzlius Dez; and once with Deus. As Filius 
Dei is a merely trivial variation of #7/zs, and as the words 
which follow his quotation in two passages confirm the latter 
reading, his testimony may be fairly regarded as favoring 
vidc,* 

2. Hippolytus, Bp. of Portus Romanus, A.D. 220. Λέγει 
yap ᾿Ιωάννης- Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε, μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὧν εἰς TOV κόλπον τοῦ 
πατρός, αὐτὸς διηγήσατο, (Cont. Moet. c. 5, in Routh’s Scrpt. 
Bacles. Opusc. i 58, ed. alt., or “Migne's: Patrol (Grim 
S12") 

3. The Third Synod at Antioch (A.D. 269), in their Epistle 
to Paul of Samosata. (Concilia, ed. Coleti, i. 869”; also 
in Routh’s Relig. Sacr. ii. 473, or ili. 297, ed. alt.) 

4. Archelaus, or rather the Acta Disp. Archelat cum 
Manete (about A.D. 300 9), as preserved in a Latin version. 
(Cap, 32, in -Routh’s. Aelg.Sacr. iv. 213; or v: 121,"ed. alta, 
also in Migne’s Patrol. Gr. x. 1479°.) 

5. Alexander, Bp. of Alexandria, a.D. 313. (Epzst. ad 
Alex. Constant. § 4, ap. Theodorett Fist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 4 
(al. 3), or in Migne’s Patrol. Gr. xvill. 553°.) 

6. Eusebius, Bp. of Czesarea, Α.Ὁ. 315, quotes the passage 
with the reading υἱός not less than sz times. In one case, 
indeed, which has already been briefly noticed, the words 
ἡ μονογενὴς θεός are added after ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, and on this ground 
Dr. Tregelles claims his authority in support of the reading 
θεός. This passage alone, however, when carefully examined 
with the context, seems enough to disprove this claim; and 
when it is taken in connection with at least five other 
unequivocal quotations in which Eusebius reads υἱός, there 


* The passages are as follows; (1) ‘‘ Deum enim, inquit, nemo vidit unquam, nisi wzzgenztus 
Filius Dez, qui est in sinu Patris, ipse enarravit. Patrem enim invisibilem exsistentem ille qui in 
sinu ejus est 727s omnibus enarrat.”— Cont. Haer. lib. iii. c. τι, ὃ 6, p. 189, ed. Mass. 
(2)  Quemadmodum in Evangelio scriptum est: Deum nemo vidit unquam, nisi unigenttus Filtus, 
qui est in sinu Patris, ipse enarravit. Enarrat ergo ab initio Filius Patris,” etc. — Tbzd. 110. iv. 
c. 20, ὃ 6, p. 255. (3) “ Quemadmodum et Dominus dixit: Unigenttus Deus, qui est in sinu Patris, 
ipse enarravit.” — /6zd. lib. iv. c. 20, ὃ τι, p. 256. 


ON THE READING ‘‘ ONLY-BEGOTIEN GOD” 259 


really appears to be no room for doubt. The facts are given 
below.* 

7. Eustathius, Bp. of Antioch, a.p. 320. (De Eugastrimy- 
tho, c. 18, in Galland. 4262. Patr. iv. 563°, or Migne’s Patrol. 

Gr, Xvill. 652°.) 

8. Athanasius, Bp. of Alexandria, a.p. 326, has expressly 
quoted John i. 18 with the reading υἱός four times, and 
referred to it in such a way in ¢hree other places as to show 
in each of them that he had this reading.+ 


*Eusebius quotes John i. 18 with the reading υἱός, De Eccles. Theol. lib. i. c. 20, §§ 4, 5, 
p. 86ab, In the remarks which follow the last quotation, he repeats the expression ὁ μονογ EVIC 
υἱ ὁ ς, and uses the words οὕτω καὶ ὁ υἱὸς εἰς τὸν κόλπον ἦν τοῦ πατρός in such a way as 
to afford strong confirmation of that reading. A little further on (p.86¢) he enumerates the appella- 
tions given to Christ by the Apostle John, zz ¢hezr order, in such a manner as to demonstrate 
that he read υἱός in John i. 18. He calls upon us to observe how the Evangelist, μὲ τὰ τὸ ἅπαξ 
ὀνομάσαι λόγον (John 1.1), καὶ θεὸν τὸν αὐτὸν ἀνειπεῖν (ver. 1), καὶ φῶς ἀποκαλέσαι 
(ver. 7), καὶ μονογενῆ φάναι (ver. 14), καὶ υἱὸν θεοῦ ὁμολογ oat Wer 18), οὐκ ἔτι λόγον 
ὀνομάζει, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸν λοιπὸν ἱστορεῖ τὸν σωτῆρα ov λόγον ἑαυτὸν ἀποκαλοῦντα, 
ἀλλὰ vidv, καὶ μονογενῆ, καὶ φῶς, κ.τ. λ., Quoting John ii. τό, etc. Now the only place 
before this citation from the third chapter, in which the Evangelist, in his own person, opeuee the 

name Soz to Christ, is in the passage in question. Eusebius st, therefore, have read υἱός in 
John i. 18; and the arbitrary hypothesis that, in all his apparent quotations of the passage with 
this reading, θεός has been changed to υἱός by tvaxscribers, falls to the ground, Eusebius also 
reads υἱός͵ De Eccles. Theol. lib. i. c. 20, § 7, Ρ- 924; lib. 11. c. 23, p. 1420; and Comm. in Psalm. 
Ixxiii. rz, in Montfaucon’s Col/. Nova, i. 4408 See also lib. ii. c. 14, p. 124. We may add his 
Comm. in Is. vi. 1, where we find ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ Ov εἰς TOV κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, though 
not introduced as a formal quotation (Montf. Co//. ova, ii. 3744). It may here be observed that 
no various reading affecting the word υἱός is given by Nolte, who made use of four MSS. in revis- 
ing the text of Eusebius De Eccles. Theol. published by the Abbé Migne in his Patrol. Gr. 
tom. xxiv. 

Let us now examine the passage on which Dr. Tregelles relies, De Eccles. Theol. lib. i. c. 9, 
p- 674, Here the quotation is introduced by the assertion that the Evangelist “‘ expressly teaches 
that Christ is the only-begotten Sov in the following words,” and is succeeded by a quotation of 
John iii, 16, where the same expression also occurs, in which Eusebius says that ‘‘ our Saviour 
confirms this.” Tov εὐαγγελιστοῦ διαρ ρήδην αὐτὸν υἱὸν μονογενῆ εἶναι διδάσκον. 
τος δι’ ὧν ἔφη, Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε" ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ἢ μονογενὴς θεός, ὁ ὧν 
εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. Under these circumstances, an impartial 
critic will probably think that no clause ever more clearly betrayed itself as a marginal gloss than 
the words ἢ μονογενὴς θεός in the present instance. It is perhaps hardly worth while to mention 
that they are so regarded by the original editor, Bp. Montagu, who says of them in his note: “‘ Non 
sunt hzec evangelistze, sed nec credo Eusebii, nisi forsan, } ἤγουν» μονογενὴς θεός. ” 

The only passage that I have found in Eusebius which might ‘seem at first view to countenance 
the reading μονογενὴς θεός is in his treatise De Eccles. Theol. lib. iii. c. 6, pp. 174,175. After 
having quoted Eph. iv. 5, 6, he says of the Father: ‘‘ He alone may be called (γρηματίζοι a) 
the One God, and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; but the Son [may be called] only-begotten 
God, who is in the bosom of the Father (ὁ δὲ vide μονογενὴς θεός, 6 ὧν εἰς TOV κόλπον TON 
matpoc); but the Paraclete Spirit can be called neither God nor ὅοη." Here it will be observed 
that Eusebius does not assert that the Son zs called ‘‘ only-begotten God”? in scripture, but only 
that it is proper to give him that name. This passage, therefore, does not weaken the force of his 
express quotations of John i. 18 with the reading 16c, [Compare p. 278 note.] 


t The direct quotations of Athanasius are: De Decret. Nic. Synod. c. 13: Περὶ δὲ Tow 


260 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


9. Pseud-Athanasius (4th century?). (Contra Sabellian, 
c. 2, Opp. ii. 38°; Migne, xxvii. 100°.) 

10. Cyril of Jerusalem, A.D. 350, probably. He has no- 
where expressly quoted the passage, but ad/udes to it as 
follows : Πιστείομεν τοίνυν εἰς ἕνα θεὸν πατέρα... ὃν ἀνθρώπων μὲν οὐδεὶς 
ἑώρακεν, ὁ μονογενὴς δὲ μόνος ἐξηγήσατο, (Cat. Wii Ὁ. ΠῚ Opp. Dp. HE; 
ed. Tout.) Here the omission of υἱός after μονογενής affords 
no ground for supposing that it was absent from his Greek 
copies in John i. 18, because its omission does not affect the 
sense. But if he had read θεός in this passage, it 15 improbable 
that he would have neglected so important a word. To this 
it may be added that in his Eleventh Catechesis it is his 
special object to prove that the sozshzp of Christ implies his 
divinity, or, as he expresses it, that θεὸς θεὸν ἐγέννησεν. Such 
being the case, had he read μονογενὴς θεός in John 1. 18, he could 
hardly have failed to quote the passage ; none would seem so 
likely to have suggested itself. But he has not referred to it. 

11. The Emperor Julian, a.p. 362, has quoted the passage 
twice with the reading υἱός. (Ap. Cyril. Alex. lib. x. cont. 
Funan. Opp. τὰ i. 333:) 

12. Titus of Bostra, a.p. 362. (Cont. Manichaeos, lib. iii. 
Ἐπ; in Galland. 4262. Paty: v. 332°, or Migne’s Patrel Gr 
xvili, 1224.) He has also once quoted the passage with the 
reading υἱὸς θεός͵ Ἐ 

13. Gregory of Nazianzus, A.D. 370. Ἐπειδὴ υἱὸς μονογενής, 
ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὧν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. (Orat. 


xxix. al. xxxv. Ὁ. 17, p. §35°, ed. Bened.) Euthymius quotes 


κυρίου εὐαγγελιζόμε νος λέγει" Ὃ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὧν εἰς τὸν κόλπον, κ.τ.. Et 
τοίνυν» υἱός, OW κτίσμα, κι τ. ἡ. (Opp. i. 2199, ed. Bened., Par. 1698.) 7624. c. 21, p. 2274, 
Orat. ii. Sep Arian. c. 62, p. 530d. Ovrat. iv. cont. Arian. c. 26, p. 638%: ἸΤάλιν δὲ τὸ 
ἐν αὐτῷ TO ᾿Ιωάννῃ εἰρημένον͵ Ὃ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὧν εἰς τὸν κόλπον, K.T.A. δείκνυσι 
τὸν υἱὸν ἀεὶ εἰνα. Ὃν γὰρ λέγει ὁ ᾿Ιωάννης υἱόν, τοῦτον χεῖρα ὁ AG) Bid ψάλλει 
λέγων. Ἵνα τί ἀπ TOOT pe φεις τὴν χεῖρά σου... ἐκ μέσου τ τοῦ κόλπου cov (Psalm Ixxiil. 
al. Ixxiv. 11). Οὐκοῦν εἰ ἡ γεὶρ ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ἐν κόλπῳ, K.T.A. The refer- 
ences to the reading υἱός, which in this case are as explicit as quotations, are found in Oraz. iv. 
cont. Arian. c. τό, p. 628ef; 247d. c. 20, p. 6314: and-c. 23, pp. 634f, 6352 

* (bid. c. 11, ap. Galland. Bzd/. Patr. v. 338¢, or Migne, xviii. 12408. Here θεός may have 
been added by Titus from John i. 1, to indicate, as he says in the following sentence, that the 
υἱός WAS υἱὸς ) γνήσιος ὅμοιος τῷ γεγεννηκότι. Compare the insertion in the next sentence to 


this, where he quotes 1 Matt. iii. 17 ce eon 5) thus: Οὐτός ἐστιν 6 υἱός μου ὁ μονογενὴς 
καὶ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ ἐγὼ εὐδόκησα. 


ON THE READING ‘‘ ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD”’ 261 


this passage from Gregory with the same reading. (Panopl. 
Bars i tit. xt.) 

14. Pseudo-Basilius (4th century 3), that is, the author of a 
Homily published with the works of Basil. (Hom. in Psalm. 
XXVili. c. 3, in Basilit Magni Opp. i. 359°, Migne, xxx. 77°, ed. 
Bened.) 

15. Rufinus Syrus or Palaestinensis, about A.D. 390, as 
preserved in a very early Latin translation. (De Fide, lib. 1. 
c. 16, in Szvmondt Opera Varia, i. 166*, ed. Venet. 1728.) 

16. Chrysostom, a.p. 398, not less than ezgh¢ times. In 
several of these instances he so comments on the word υἱός as 
to show beyond question that he had this reading.* 

17. Theodore of Mopsuestia, A.D. 407, in his comment on 
John i. 29. Εἰρηκὼς ἐνταῦθα ὁ βαπτιστής, ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν 
τοῦ κόσμου, οὐκ εἶπεν ‘O μονογενὴς υἱός, οὐδέ, ‘O ὧν ἐν τοῖς κόλποις τοῦ πατρός, οἷα 
φαίνεται ἐν τοῖς ἀνωτέρω εἰρηκώς (5. Ὁ: in John i 18). Ap. Mai 
Nov. Patr. Bibl. tom. vii. P. 1. Oe 397, or in Migne’s Patrol. 
Gr. \xvi. 733°. 

18. Nonnus, of eaanenet in Egypt, a.p. 410, probably. 
In his poetical Paraphrase of the Gospel of John he has no 
trace of the reading θεός, which he would hardly have failed 
to express, had he found it in the original. He uses μονογενής 
alone, which implies υἱός, 

19. Theodoret, Bp. of Cyrrhus, near Antioch, A.D. 423, 
atleast four times. . (Comm. iniBsalm.) οἰ 15) Dza/.. 1; 
Haer. Fab. lib. v. cc. 1, 2. Opp. i. 1392, and iv. 20, 379, 383, 
ed. Schulz.) 

20. Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople, a.D. 434. (Ovat. 
xv. c. 2; Analect. Ὁ. 440, ed. Riccard., or in Migne’s Patro/. 
Gr. \xv. 801) 

21. Pseudo-Cyril (5th century ?). I refer under this name 


* De Incomp. Det Natura, Hom. iv. c. 3, δῆς , zbéd. cc. 4; 224. Hom. v.c.1; Ad eos gut 
scandalizati sunt,c.3; In Is. cap. vi.§ 1; [x tllud, Filius ex se nzhil, etc.,c. 6; In Foan. Hom. 
xy. al. xiv. cc. r (text), 2. Opp. i. 4752, 4760, 4818; 111. 4700; vi. 649, 2644; viii. 84b, 86¢, cf. 
87be, ed. Montf. Of these passages, those first referred to will be found, on examination, to 
exclude the fosszdz/zty of the supposition that Chrysostom really quoted the passage with the read- 
ing θεός͵ and that transcribers have substituted υἱός, I may also remark that neither Savile nor 
Montfaucon has noted in his MSS., in any of these instances, any various reading affecting 
υἱός. 


262 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


to a work, De sanctad et vivificd Trinitate, ascribed to Cyril 
of Alexandria, and published as his by Cardinal Mai. Dr. 
Tregelles, however, to whose judgment I have deferred, 
regards it as the production of a later writer than Cyril.* 
In this work (cap. 6) John i. 18 is quoted with the reading 
vide. ἡ 

22. Andreas, Bp. of Crete, a.p. 635? (Orat. 2x Trausfig. 
Opp. p. 44", ed. Combefis ; Migne, xcvii. 940°.) 

23. Pseudo-Cesarius (7th century 9). (Quaest. et Respons. 
Dial. i. Resp. 4, af. Galland. B26, Patr. vi. 8°.) The work 
here cited has been attributed, but it would seem erroneously, 
to Czesarius, the brother of Gregory Nazianzen. It was 
accredited as his in the time of Photius, who has described 
it. Migne, xxxviil. 864. 

24. Joannes Damascenus, A.D. 730, ¢hree times. (De 
Fide Orthod. \ib. i. c. 1 ; Adv. Nestorianos, c. 32, bis, and 42. 
ΘΡΡ τ 1235562" πο ed. le Outen, 

25. Theodore Studites, a.p. 813, twee. (Antirrhet. iii. 14, 
and! το ἢ 30.) East. etc pp. το. \340°;\as: edited! 
by Sirmond in his Ogera Varia, tom. v.; Migne, xcix. 396%, 
1210. 

26. Andreas the Presbyter (9th or roth century ?), in his 
Catena on 1 John iv. 11-17. (Cramer’s Catenae, viii. 134.) 

27. The Catena on John i. 18, published by Cramer. 
(Cramer’s Catenae, 11. 189.) 

28. Theophylact, a.p. 1070. (Comm. in loc. Opp. i. 510%, 
ed. Venet.;; Migne, cxximl 1164) 

29. Euthymius Zigabenus or Zygadenus, A.D. 1110, thrice. 
(Comm. in loc) ‘ili. 35; 30; ed) ΝΠ ἢ; Miche, exoix: 125 
ii2o°;, and Panopl, P. it, tit. soi (Adu Gogomiios) Ὁ Ὁ: 
Ὁ τ εἴ}; Gieseler’; (Migneé, ΣΤ ΞΘ“) 

It is hardly worth while to go lower than this, but two or 
three more writers may be added for completeness. 

30. Elias Cretensis, A.D) 787 \aecarding to Cave, bE2e 


* Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Test., p. 232, note f. 
tIn Matt Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. tom. viii. P. ii. p. 31, and in his Mov. Patr. Bzbl. ii. 5; 
also in Migne’s Patrod. Gr. Ixxv. 1153). 


ON THE READING “ ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD”’ 263 


according to Oudin. (Comm. in Greg. Nas. Orat. 1., in the 
App. to Greg. Naz. Opp. ii. 210°, ed. of 1630.) 

31. Zacharias ChrySopolitanus, A.D. 1157. (In Unum ex 
Quat. lib. i. in loc., according to the Latin version in Max. 
Bibl. Patr. xix. 762°.) 

32. Nicetas Choniates, a.p. 1200, four times. (Thes. 
Orthod. lib. i. c. 27; iv. 31; v. 41, 60, according to the Latin 
version in Max. Bibl. Patr. xxv. 75', 130°, 165°, 176°.) 

We will now attend to the testimony of the Latin Fathers. 
Some of them, as Tertullian, Hilary, Victorinus Afer, 
Ambrose, and Jerome, were acquainted with Greek, and 
occasionally, at least, consulted the original; but the evi- 
dence of the majority bears only on the reading of the Old 
Latin and Vulgate versions. Notwithstanding the extraordi- 
nary statements of Dr. Tregelles, and various editors of the 
Greek Testament who have been misled by Wetstein, no 
quotation of John i. 18 with the reading unigenitus Deus has 
ever been produced from a single Latin Father. The fol- 
lowing quote the passage with the reading F2dzws - — 

1. Tertullian, a.p. 200. (Adv. Prax. c. 15, cf. c. 8.) 

2. Hilary of Poitiers, a.p. 354, at least seven times. (Tract. 
in Psalm. cxxxviii. c. 35 ; — De Trin. lib. ii. c. 23 ; lib. iv. ce. 8, 
Har libn vo ce,’ 33,- 34 and {ΠΡ ΘΕ. 39: Opp. coll. 520%, 
799°, 831°, 852°,. 873°, 874°, 905°, ed. Bened.)* 


*In the last passage referred to (De Trim. lib. vi. c- 39) Hilary has commented on his quo- 
tation of John i. 18 in such a way as to demonstrate that he read Fzdzus. He remarks: ‘‘ Nature 
fides non satis explicata videbatur ex nomine Fz/z7, nisi proprietatis extrinsecus virtus per excepti- 
onis significantiam adderetur. Prater 2Jzw7 enim, et wégenztum cognominans, suspicionem 
adoptionis penitus exsecuit.” 

The only passage, so far as I know, in all Hilary’s writings, which has even the appearance of 
supporting the reading wnzgenitus Deus, is in his work De Tr7n. lib. xii. c. 24, coll. 1124-25; cf. 
247, note, supra. This is partially quoted by Dr. Tregelles, and has already been adverted to 
We will now compare it with the context, which will make it clear that it affords no reason for 
supposing that Hilary read Dews instead of Filius in John i. 18. Having quoted Exod. iii. 14, 
«εἰ Misit me ad vos zs guz est” (Sept. 6 ὧν), and remarking ‘‘ Deo proprium esse zd guod est non 
ambigens sensus est,” he goes on to argue that this expression implies eternity, and then says: 
‘Quod igitur et per Moysen de Deo significatum . - - id ipsum unigenito Deo esse proprium 
Evangelia testantur: cum in principio erat Verbum (John i. 1), et cum hoc apud Deum evat 
(z¢d.), et cum erat lumen verum (ver. g), et cum unigenitus Deus in sinu Patris es¢ (ver. 18), 
et cum Jesus Christus super omnia Deus es¢ (Rom. ix. 5). γα igitur, atque 652, quia ab eo 
est, qui quod est semper est.” 

From this it will be perceived that Hilary’s argument rests wholly on the word est. When he 
says ‘cum unigenitus Deus in sinu Patris est,” there is no more reason for regarding the words 


264 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


3. Phoebadius (or Phzebadius), Bp. of Agen in Gaul, a.p. 
359. (Cont. Arian. c. 12, in Galland. 4202. Patr. v. 253, or 
Migne’s Patrol. xx. 21°.) 

4. Victorinus Afer, A.D. 360, sex times. (De Gen. Verb. 
Div., ad Candidum, cc. 16 (unigenitus Dei Filius), 20;— 
Adu. Arium, \ib. i. cc. 2, 4; lib. iv. ce. 8, 33. In Migne’s 
Pavol. Vill;* 1020, 1030; LOAT, 1042, ΤΟ rec) πη 
the last instance he had the Greek before him. Adv. Arius, 
lib. 1. c. 15, he omits Fzdzus.. Migne, viii. 1050.) 

5. Ambrose, Bp. of Milan, a.p. 374, at least seven times. 
(De Fos. c. 14, al. 84;— De Bened. Patr. c. 11, al. 51; — ln 
Wouc. lib: i. οἰ 255 lib: tive, 125 De fide, ib. 111: 1 5. al Ὁ] ἘΞ 
Dei Spor. Sanct. Wb. 1: Ὁ 41: 26; ΞΞ 2752. xxii δ᾿ 2Onp. 
ΤΟΣ 527, 12740, 1286"; ii, οι ΘΟ, 875. ed ened.) 

6. Jerome.) Am. 1378). (ie Beck. Ἐς xiv. Opps diy vo23: 
ed. Mart.; Migne, xxv. 420, 430.) 

7. Faustinus, a.D. 384, zhrvee times. (De Tram. lib. i. c. 2, 
§ 5, in Migne’s Patrol. xiii. 54°.) 

8. Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, a.p. 396, ¢kvee times. (/x 
Joan, LVAD. GERI Ὁ; 35) SERVE C5 ΧΙνΗ Ὁ τ Opp. tom τ 
P. ii, col, 1638, 1660, 1734, ed. Migine.. Cont. Adim. c. 0, vim. 
140, Migne.) 

9. Adimantus the Manichzean, A.D. 396. (Ap. Augustinum 
cont. Adimant. c. 9, § 1, Opp. vill. 139, ed. Migne.) 

10. Maximinus, the Arian bishop, A.D. 428, Ζτυζεε. (Ap. 
Augustint Collat. cum Maximin. cc. 13, 18, Opp. vill. 719, 
728, ed. Migne.) 

11. The author of the work against Virimadus ascribed to 
Idacius Clarus, a.p. 385, ¢kvee times. (Adv. Virimad. lib. i. 
cc. 64, 66, in Max. Bibl. Patr. v. 731°, 740°;* Migne, Ixii. 
393°, 395°. Unigenitus alone, lib. i. c. 18; Migne, lxii. 366°) 


“unigenitus Deus” as quoted from John than there is for supposing them to be quoted from Paul 
a page or two below (c. 26), where Hilary says, “‘cum secundum Apostolum ante tempora eterna 
sit unigenitus Deus,” referring to 2 Tim. i. 9. 

The expression “‘ unigenitus Deus” is a favorite one with Hilary. It occurs in his treatise 
De Trinttate about one hundred and four times. The frequency of this expression in his writings, 
with the cer¢aznty that he read F#/zs in John i. 18, shows how futile it is to argue from the mere 
use of this phrase in the works of a Father that he found it in scripture. 

* Montfaucon ascribes this work, and also the first eight books of the one next mentioned, to 
Idatius the chronicler (A.D. 445). See his edition of Athanasius I]. 602, 603. 


ON THE READING “ ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD” 265 


12. Vigilius of Tapsa, a.D. 484, or the author, whoever he 
was, of libri xii. de Trinttate. (De Trin. lib. iv. in Max. Bibl. 
Patr. viii. 783°, or in Athanasiz Opp. ii. 615°, ed. Monte. ; 
Migne, Ixii. 265°.) Unigenitus alone, lib. iii; Migne, Ixii. 
260%. 

13. Junilius, a.p. 550. (De Part. Div. Legis, lib. i. c. 16, 
in Migne’s Patrol. \xviii. 22°.) 

14. Alcuin, a.D. 780. (Comm. super Joan. in loc. Opp. 
A472, 473, ed. Froben., or in Misne’s Paso, Ὁ περ ch 
753°:) 

Other Latin Fathers, as Paschasius Radbertus, Bruno 
Astensis, etc., might be cited to the same purpose; but it is 
useless to go any further. 

III. The three following Fathers have quoted the passage 
with doef readings, and their testimony may be regarded as 
doubtful ; namely, Origen, Basil the Great, and, Cyril of 
Alexandria. The last, on the whole, favors θεός: but as it 
seems not improbable that they all had both readings in 
their copies of the Greek Testament, we will consider their 
evidence together. 

1. Origen, A.D. 230, according to the text of the Benedic- 
tine edition (De la Rue) has the reading θεός twice; on the 
other hand, he has υἱός once, once υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, and once unigent- 
tus Det Filius in a work preserved only in the Latin version 
of Rufinus.* 

2. Basil of Caesarea, a.D. 370, according to the text of his 


* Origen has θεός, /x Foan. tom. ii. c. 29, and xxxii. c. 13 (Opp. iv. 89b, 4384, ed. De la Rue). 
In doth these passages, however, the very literal version of Ferrari, made from a MS. now lost, 
reads wnzgenttus alone, without either Dexs or Filévs. If he had υἱός in his Greek copy, the 
omission would be unimportant; but if he had θεός, the neglect to translate it would be strange 
and inexcusable. On the other hand, we have yj 6 ¢, Cont. Cels. lib. ii. c. 71, Opp. i. 440f. Θεὸν 
οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε TOTOTE* ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὧν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος 
ἐξηγήσατο. So De la Rue and Lommatzsch, from two MSS.; the earlier edition of Hoeschel, 
founded on a single MS., instead of ὁ μονογενὴς vide reads καὶ povoyevac ye Ov θεός. 
But this, it will at once be perceived, bears the marks of a marginal gloss, which, by one of the 
most common of mistakes in MSS., has been substituted for the text. Compare the similar gloss 
in Eusebius De Eccles. Theol. lib. i. c. 9, noticed above; cf. p. 259. Yide τοῦ θεοῦ; occurs, 
In Foan. tom. vi. c. 2, Opp. iv. 1024, as edited by De la Rue and Lommatzsch from the Bodleian 
MS., which appears to be an excellent one; the earlier edition of Huet, which was founded on a 
single MS., reads υἱὸς θεός. A little after, in two allusions to the passage, ὁ uovoy evyc is used 
alone; Opp. iv. 102e, r14¢. “‘ Unigenitus Dei Filius,” Zz Cawf. lib. iv. Opp. iii. ore. Unigenztus 
Filzus just before, alluding to the passage. 


266 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Benedictine editors (Garnier and Maran), has θεός once, and 
in another passage he mentions True Son, Only-Begotten 
God, Power of God, Wisdom, and Logos, as names given to 
Christ in scripture ; but he twice quotes the text in question 
with the reading υἱός, ἢ 

3. Cyril of Alexandria, A.D. 412, as edited by Aubert, has 
θεός four times, and υἱός three times. His commentary on the 
passage, as printed, favors θεός, but its evidence is somewhat 
weakened by various readings. f 

The whole of the external evidence for the different read- 
ings of the passage in question, so far as I am acquainted 
with it, has now been stated. If one should look into 
Wetstein, and find apparently a considerable number of 
authorities which have not been noticed, he may be assured 
that they have all been carefully examined, and that they 
amount to nothing. The same is true of the vague refer- 
ences to “ali permulti,” “alit multi,’ in the last edition of 
Tischendorf, and of similar references in other critical edi- 
tions of the Greek Testament, all founded on Wetstein’s 


*Basil reads θεός, De Spir. Sanct. c. 6, Opp. iti. 12b. Comp. 224. c. 8, p. 14°, where he 
says, Olde yap [ἡ γραφὴ] τὸ ὄνομα ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ, Kai υἱὸν ἀληθινὸν λέγειν 
(al. λέγει), καὶ μονογενῆ θεόν, καὶ δύναμιν θεοῦ, καὶ σοφίαν, καὶ λόγον. On the 
other hand, he has υἱός, De 5227. Sanct. c. 11, Opp. ili. 238, where the six MSS. of Garnier 
appear to agree in this reading, though one of Matthzi’s Moscow MSS. has θεός (see Matthzei’s 
Nov. Test. Graec. i..780). He again has υἱός, apparently without any variation in the ten MSS. 
of Garnier, £fzst. 234 (al. 400), c. 3, Opp. ii. 358b. Here Matthzi’s Moscow MS. also reads 
υἱός. 

t Cyril reads θεός, Thes. Assert. xiii. and χχν. Opp. v. i. 1370, 2378; but Latin of δογια- 
ventura Vulcantus, “ unigenitus fil. Dei’’ (Drummond). The correctness of θεός in his text in 
the last instance is confirmed by the citations of this passage of Cyril in Catenae, from which it has 
been printed in his Comm. on Luke ii. 7, in Mai’s Nova Patr. Bib]. ii. 123, and Migne’s Patrol. 
Gr. Ixxii. 4878; also in the Cateza published by Cramer (vi. 305) on Col. i. 16. He has θεός͵ 
moreover, in the Dialogue Quod Unus sit Christus, Opp. v. i. 768°. In his Comm. on John i. 
18 he has υἱός in the ¢ex?, Opp. iv. 103; but toward the end of his remarks he quotes the passage 
with the reading θεός, Ῥ- 107>. He also says: ᾿Επιτηρητέον δὲ πάλιν, ὅτε μονογενῆ θεὸν 
ἀποκαλεῖ τὸν υἱόν, Ρ- τοῦ. But here the scholion in one of Matthzi’s Moscow MSS. cites him 
as saying, ᾿Επιτηρητέον τοίνυν͵ ὅτε καὶ μονογενῆ ἀποκαλεῖ τὸν vidv, omitting θεὸν, and 
the Catena in Corderius, ’Exvt, πάλιν ὅτε καὶ μονογενῆ θεὸν ᾿αποκαλεῖ Tov Ὑἱόν, k.T.A. 
Still, the commentary, on the whole, confirms the reading fledc, 

He has the reading υἱός, Thes. Assert. xxxv., and Adv. Nestorium, lib. iii. c. 5, Opp. ν- 1. 
365¢, and vi. i. gob. This reading is also found twice in an extract which he gives from Julian, in 
his work against that emperor. Opp. VI. ii. 3336. 

In an adZuston to John i. 18 we find ὁ μονογενὴς τοῦ θεοῦ λόγος, ὁ ἐν κόλποις OY 
TOU πατρός. Afpol. adv. Orient. Opp. νι. 1876. 


ON THE READING “ ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD” 267 


note.* They relate without exception, not to quotations of 
the passage in question, but merely to examples of the 
phrase μονογενὴς θεός or untgenttus Deus, employed without any 
allusion to John i. 18. After all that has been said, it will 
hardly be pretended that the mere use of this expression by 
a Greek or Latin Father affords any evidence that he read it 
in this passage. We might as well argue from the frequency 
of the expression ὁ θεὸς λόγος in the writings of the Fathers 
from the third century downwards, or of θεοτόκος and Dezpara 
applied to the Virgin Mary, or of “God the Son” in modern 
theological works, that these precise designations must have 
been found in scripture by those who have so freely employed 
them. Though the phrase has now become unusual, there 
were good reasons for its popularity in ancient times. The 
Arians, who laid great stress on the fact that the Father was 
“unbegotten’”’ and “without beginning,” ἀγέννητος and ἄναρχος, 
were fond of calling the Son “the only-begotten God,” 
because, while the term expressed his high dignity, it brought 
into view his derived existence. Segotten by an act of God’s 
will, he could not, they argued, be eternal. The Orthodox, 
on the other hand, who saw no absurdity in the idea of 
eternal generation, were fond of the expression, because they 
regarded it as indicating his derivation from the sadstance of 
the Father, as it is explained in the Nicene Creed, γεννηθέντα ἐκ 
Tov πατρὸς μονογενῆ, TouTéoTLY, ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός, θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, Both the 
Arians and the Orthodox freely applied the term θεύς to 
Christ. 

Before proceeding to consider the zz#ternal evidence for the 
different readings, it will be convenient to present the results 


*It may be worth while to say that the Opus [miperfectum, a Latin commentary on Matthew 
cited by Tischendorf and others as an authority for fed¢, contains no quotation of John i. 18. It 
has the exfresszon ‘‘unigenitus Deus” in the remarks on Matthew 1. 20, v. 9, xix. 17, and xxiv. 
41. The work is appended to tom. vi. of the Benedictine ed. of Chrysostom. 

It may be satisfactory to refer here also to the places where this expression occurs in some other 
writers, who have been erroneously cited as authorities for the reading μονογενὴς θεός in John i. 
18. See Pseudo-Ignat. ad Philad. c. 6 (the larger recension); Const. Afost. ili. 17; v. 20; Vii. 
38, 43; vili. 7,35; Arius, af. Athanas. de Syn. c. 15, Opp. i. 7288, but zot ap. Epiph. Haer. \xix. 
c. 6, Opp. i. 7314, πληρὴς θεός, μονογενής ; Asterius, af. Athanas. de Syn. c. 18, p. 732b; 
Eunomius, Expos. Fid. c.3,and Afol. cc. 15, 21, 26 (ap. Fabric. Bibl. Graec. tom. viii.) ; Greg. 
Naz. Epist. 202, ad Nectartum, Opp. ii. 168¢; Gaudentius, Ser. xix., in Migne’s Patvod. xx. 
ggob; Ferrandus, Z#/7s¢. iii. cc..2, 7, 9-11; V- 2,5; vil. 12; in Migne, Ixvii. 


268 


CRITICAL ESSAYS 


of the preceding examination in a tabular form, so that one 
may see at a glance the authorities for each. The figures 
added to the names of the Fathers denote the time when 


they flourished. 


FOR THE READING θεός. 


Manuscripts. 
x, B, C*, L, 33: 


Versions. 


Pesh. Syr., Harcl. Syr. 
(marg.),Copt., Aeth.(Rom. 
ed.) 


Greek Fathers. 


Clem Al 9% Phead 284, 
Epiph.*®, zivee times, and 
one ref., Didym.®”, ¢zwice, 
and owe ref. (?); Cyr. Al.#22, 
four times, and one ref. (?), 
but υἱός three times. 

Perhaps, 2d Syn. An- 
cyr.*58, ove ref., and Greg. 
Nyss.3, ove ref., and ezght 
allusions, but both very 
uncertain. (See above, 


Pp. 254-257.) 


Latin Fathers. 


None. 


Wholly doubtful. 
of their readings above. 


Origen”, Basil the Great®”. 


FOR THE READING υἱός. 


Manuscripts. 


NEF A Cex, A, ἘΠ ΕΟ εν: 
I, 69, and, with one exception, all the other cur- 
sive MSS., several hundred in number, which 
have been examined on the passage. 


Versions. 


Old Lat., Vulg., Curet. Syr., Harcl. Syr. 
(text), Jerus. Syr., Aeth. (Platt’s ed.), Armen. 


Greek Fathers. 


Iren.!"8 AZrobably, Hippol.*°, 3d Syn. Ant.2%, 
Archel.3, Alex. Al.318, Euseb.®15, sza times, and 
one allus., Eustath. Ant.®°, Athanas.26, four or 
rather seven times, Pseud-Athan.* cent? Cyr, 
Hier.2°, probably, Julian®™, ¢wice, Tit. Bostr.36, 
Greg. Naz.3”, Pseudo-Basil., Rufin. Syr.*®, 
Chrysost.3%, ezet times, Theod. Mops.*", Non- 
nus?! probably, Theodoret*3, four times, Pro- 
clus#4, Psezdo-Cyr.5th cent, Andr.Cret.®°, Pseudo- 
Czesarius™hcent.?, Joan. Dam."®°, ¢hrzce, Theod. 
Stud.8!8, ¢wzce, Andr. presb.%h cent.?, Caten. ed. 
Cramer*th or 10th cent. Theoph.00, Euthym.1110, 
thrice, Elias Cret.1!, Zach. Chrys.1", Nic. 
Chon.120, 


Latin Fathers. 


Tert.2, Hilar.?°4, sever times, Phoebad.*®®, Vic- 
torin. Afer®®, sz times, Ambrose®"4, seven times, 
Jerome®”’, Faustin.**4, ¢ivee times, August.*°, 
three times, Adimant.3%*, Maximin.#”8, ¢wece, Ida- 
cius® or 445, ¢iree times, Vigil. Taps.4*4, Junil.%°, 
Alcuin™®°, and others. 


See the full account 


ON THE READING ‘‘ ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD” 26 
9 


This exposition of the evidence makes it apparent that 
Dr. Tregelles has been somewhat incautious in asserting 
that μονογενὴς θεός is “the ancient reading of the Fathers 
generally,” 

In estimating the external evidence, it is important to 
consider the wide geographical distribution of the witnesses 
for υἱός, They represent every important division of the 
Christian world. The reading υἱός is attested by the Cure- 
tonian, Harclean, and Jerusalem Syriac versions; by the 
Third Synod at Antioch, Eustathius of Antioch, and Theodo- 
ret ; by Titus of Bostra in Arabia; by Gregory of Nazianzus 
in Cappadocia, and Theodore of Mopsuestia in Cilicia; by 
the Armenian version ; by Eusebius of Czesarea in Palestine, 
who paid particular attention to the text of the Gospels, 
and was commissioned by the Emperor Constantine to pro- 
cure fifty copies of the scriptures carefully written for the 
use of the churches at Constantinople; by Alexander and 
Athanasius of Alexandria; by Chrysostom and Proclus of 
Constantinople ; by the Old Latin and Vulgate versions, and, 
apparently, the whole Western Church, without exception. 
On the other hand, the authorities for θεός, besides being 
much more limited in number, are, so far as we know their 
locality, almost wholly Egyptian.* 

Comparing the readings in respect to axtzguzty, we find in 
favor of υἱός, before the middle of the fourth century, the Old 
Latin and Curetonian Syriac versions, Irenaeus (probably), 
Tertullian, Hippolytus, the Third Synod at Antioch (a.pD. 269), 
Archelaus, Alexander of Alexandria, Eusebius, Eustathius of 
Antioch, and Athanasius: on the other side, we have during 
this period only the Peshito Syriac (if that version in its 
present form is so ancient), Clement of Alexandria (some- 
what doubtful), the Excerpta Theodotz, and the Coptic version. 
In the period that follows, though the few MSS. that support 
θεός are of the highest character, the evidence, on the whole, 
must be regarded as preponderating against it. 


*The Harclean Syriac in the »zavgzn represents the reading of one or two Greek MSS. with 
which it was collated at Alexandria, A.D. 616. 


270 CRITICAL ESSAYS 

We now come to the zzternal evidence. It is urged in 
favor of θεός that μονογενής naturally suggests the word υἱός, so 
that a transcriber might easily inadvertently substitute it for 
θεός, This consideration appears to be of some weight. 

It is also urged in favor of μονογενὴς θεός that it is entitled 
to preference as the more difficult reading, being one at 
which transcribers would naturally stumble as an unexampled 
expression. This argument, however, will not bear examina- 
tion. In the first place, if transcribers were struck with 
the expression as remarkable, it is not probable that they 
would intentionally alter it. They. would be more likely 
to reverence it as containing a mystery. In the second 
place, though μονογενὴς θεός may sound strangely to us, it 
was not a strange or harsh expression to copyists of the 
third, fourth, and fifth centuries. On the contrary, it was, 
as we have seen, a favorite phrase with many writers of 
this period, being used with equal freedom both by the 
Arians and their opponents. So far from stumbling at it, 
transcribers may have been led, by their very familiarity with 
the expression, to introduce it unconsciously into the text. 
Let us look at the passage in John. In the clause imme- 
diately preceding ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός͵ θεόν had just occurred, bring- 
ing θεός before the mind of the copyist. Is it strange that 
in transcribing he should inadvertently connect this word 
with μονογενής, the combination being so familiar to him, the 
words ec and yc being so similar in ancient MSS., and θεός 
being so much the more common of these two abbreviated 
words? Such a mistake, in some early MS. or MSS., might 
have been easily propagated, so as to extend to the compara- 
tively few authorities which exhibit the reading θεός, It is 
much more difficult to account for such an ancient and wede- 
spread corruption as must have taken place, if θεός proceeded 
originally from the pen of the Evangelist. If he “ad written 
μονογενὴς θεός in this passage, so remarkable an expression must 
have early attracted attention, and stamped itself inefface- 
ably, like the language in the first verse of his Gospel, 
upon the whole Christian literature. It would have been 
continually quoted and appealed to. 


ON THE READING “ ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD” 271 


But there is another aspect of the internal evidence, which 
must strike every one who reads the passage in question 
with attention. “No man hath seen Gop at any time; the 
only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he 
hath declared him.” Is it not evident that the introduction 
of the phrase “only-begotten God,” after the use of the 
word “God” alone and absolutely, immediately before it, is 
ἃ harshness which we can hardly suppose in any writer? 
Does not the word “ Father,” in a sentence like this, almost 
necessarily imply that the correlative “Son” has just pre- 
ceded? And is there anything analogous to this expression, 
“the only-begotten God,” in the writings of John, or in any 
other part of the New Testament? 


In closing this discussion, the writer wishes to express 
his great respect for Dr. Tregelles, and the earnest desire 
that his life and health may be spared for the completion of 
the important work on which he has been so long engaged. 
No scholar of the present century, with the single exception 
of Tischendorf, has so high a claim on the gratitude of all 
who are solicitous to obtain the purest possible text of the 
original records of our religion. His labors for this object 
have displayed a patient, earnest, and self-sacrificing devo- 
tion worthy of the highest admiration. The reasons for 
differing from him in opinion in regard to the genuineness 
of θεός in John i. 18, and for desiring a more complete and 
accurate statement of the evidence than he has given in this 
case, have now been laid before the reader, who will judge of 
the whole matter for himself. 


XIII. 


ON THE READING “AN ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD,” 
OR oS GOD, -ONLY-~BEGOTTEN, ΠΝ ors: 


[From the Unztartan Review and Religious Magazine for June, 1875.] 


Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε" ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός [var. reading μονογενὴς θεός], ὁ ὧν 
εἰς τὸν κύλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. 


As the writer of the present article has already twice dis- 
cussed the reading of this passage,— first in the Appendix to 
Norton’s Statement of Rcasovs, etc. (2d ed., 1856), pp. 448- 
469, and afterwards in the 426. Sacr. for Oct., 1861, p. 840 
sqq. [see Essay XII.],— an apology may be needed for return- 
ing to the subject. The question, however, has acquired a 
new interest in connection with the revision of the common 
English version of the Bible which is now in progress in 
England and this country. It is well known that two of the 
most eminent among the scholars of the British Committee 
engaged in this work, Dr. Westcott and Mr. Hort, have 
adopted the reading ‘‘God” in the text of their (as yet un- 
published) critical edition of the Greek Testament. Another 
of the British revisers, Professor Milligan, has accepted it as 
the true reading, in Milligan and Roberts’s Zhe Words of the 
New Testament, etc. (1873), p. 162 ff.; and Professor Light- 
foot, in his valuable work Ox a Fresh Revision of the English 
New Testament (2d ed., 1872), p. 27, remarks that “the ‘Only- 
begotten God’ would seem to have equal or superior claims 
to ‘the Only-begotten Son’ in John i. 18, and must either 
supersede it or claim a place side by side with it.” Dr. Tre- 
gelles receives it into the text of his important edition of the 
Greek Testament (Part II., 1861), and had previously de- 
fended its genuineness in his Account of the Printed Text of 
the Greck New Testament (1854), p. 234f.; Lachmann placed 
it in the margin of his critical editions (1831 and 1842) as an 


ON THE READING ‘‘ ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD ” 273 


alternate reading, and would undoubtedly have taken it into 
the text, had he known all the authorities by which it is 
supported. 

It must not be supposed, however, that there is a general 
agreement of scholars in favor of this reading. Tischendorf, 
though he had adopted it in the second edition of his Syzof- 
sits Evangelica (1864), has restored the reading “Son ’”’'to the 
text in his eighth critical edition of the Greek Testament 
(1869) ; Alford retains υἱός (6th ed., 1868), though giving θεός 
a place in his margin; Dr. Scrivener, also a member of the 
British Biblical Revision Committee, defends the reading 
“Son” in his /ztroduction to the Criticism of the New Testa- 
ment (2d ed., 1874), p. 525 f.;* and Bishop Wordsworth does 
not even notice the reading θεός in his edition of the Greek 
Testament (5th ed., 1866). The reading “Son” is also 
defended by Rev. T. S. Green, M.A., in his Course of Devel- 
oped Criticism, etc. (1856), p. 73, and Critecal Appendix to the 
Twofold New Testament (187-), p. 33; by Dr. Samuel David- 
son, art. “ Manuscripts, Biblical,” in Kitto’s Cycl. of Bz6l. 
Lit. (3d ed., 1870), iii. 60; by Professor James Drummond, 
of Manchester New College, in an able article in the 7heo- 
logical Review for October, 1871, pp. 468-495 ; and by Rev. 
J. B. McClellan, M.A., in his recent learned and elaborate 
work, Zhe New Testament ...a New Translation... from a 
critically revised Greek Text, etc. (Lond. 1875), vol. i. p. 707 f. 
Among scholars of the present century on the continent of 
Europe, I know of none who have adopted the reading θεός. ἢ 
It is emphatically rejected as a dogmatic gloss by Godet 
(1864) and Meyer (1869) in their recent Commentaries on the 
Gospel of John; and it is also rejected or ignored entirely 
by Olshausen (1838), Liicke (1840), Tholuck (1857), Ewald 
(1861), Briickner and De Wette (1863), Baumlein (1863), 
Hengstenberg (1867), Lange (1868), and so by Dr. Schaff in 
his American translation ; see his note. It is also ignored in 
the most important recent translations which professedly 
represent a critically revised Greek text; as that of Holtz- 


*[So, too, in the 3d ed. (1883); see especially p. 606, note.] 
+ [Now adopted by Harnack, Weiss, a/.] 


274 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


« 


mann in Bunsen’s Azbelwerk, vol. iv. (1864), the American 
Bible Union (2d revis., 1867), the new authorized Dutch 
translation by Van Hengel and others (Amst. 1868), the 
French version of Oltramare (Geneve, 1872), and the Ger- 
man translation by Weizsacker (1875). The French transla- 
tion of Rilliet (Geneve, 1860) is not an exception, as that 
only represents the Vatican MS. 

The question, then, is evidently an open one; and the 
object of the present article is to state and weigh, as fairly 
as possible, the evidence for the rival readings. It may be 
proper to mention that the substance of the paper was pre- 
pared at the request of the New Testament Company of the 
American Biblical Revision Committee, though no one but 
the writer is responsible for any statement or argument which 
it may contain. It is hoped that the account of the evidence 
will be found somewhat fuller and more accurate than has 
elsewhere been given; but, to avoid unnecessary repetition 
of what has already been published, I shall often refer, for 
details, to the articles in the Azbliotheca Sacra and the Theo- 
logical Review, which are mentioned above. Alford’s note 
also gives very fully the context of some of the passages 
cited from the Christian Fathers. In adducing authorities 
not noticed in Tischendorf’s last critical edition (1869), refer- 
ences are given; but it is assumed that one who is specially 
interested in the investigation of the question will have 
that edition at hand. 

The. evidence, then, for the’ different readings “is) as 
follows : — 


I. Manuscripts. — For μονογενὴς θεός͵ 8, B, ΟἿ, L, 33 (xe, 33, 
ὁ 0,).* 


For ὁ μον. υἱός, A, X, ΤΑΙ Δ Ce: Bak, G, FA, K, M, 5; UF Vis 


*In the Bzbléotheca Sacra for October, 1861 (p. 850), fede was given as the reading of 8 
α prima manu, as if it had been afterwards corrected. The text of the MS. was not then pub- 
lished, and I was misled by Tischendorf, who, in his Wotetia Cod. Sinattict (1860), p. 18, gave 
the reading as follows: “ Joh. 1, 18 a prima wovoyerna (absque ὁ cum BC*L) fleoo (cum BC*L 
etc.) egg (om 9 wr).” I naturally supposed the ‘‘a prima” to refer to all the variations from the 
Received Text, not merely to the first and the last. Dr. Tregelles before me had fallen into the 
same error (7ext. Crzt., 2d ed., p. 780). 


ON THE READING ‘‘ ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD ” 275 


the cursives I, 22, 28, 118, 157, 209, all of which are of excep- 
tional importance and value, also Professor Ferrar’s group, 
13, 69, 124, 346, which he regards as representing an early 
uncial akin to D, but with a purer text ;* and all other known 
cursives, several hundred in number, but the majority of them 
not carefully examined, or of little worth. D, unfortunately, 
is mutilated here; but the versions and Fathers with which 
it usually agrees support vide. 

Of these MSS., καὶ and B are assigned to the middle of the 
fourth century, A and C to the middle of the fifth, E and L 
are of the eighth century, the other uncials of the ninth or 
rent. \~ Amone the later uncials; "ly ,7 0) AA. 0 are: dis- 
tinguished from the rest, L pre-eminently, by their more 
frequent agreement with the oldest authorities. The cursive 
MS. 33 is of remarkable excellence. 

The MS. authority for θεός is weighty, though confined to 
the representatives of an Alexandrian or Egyptian text. In 
a large majority of cases, the reading supported by these 
MSS. against the rest is confirmed by other ancient evidence 
and by intrinsic probability, and has a good claim to be 
adopted. On the other hand, they all, or the most of them, 
sometimes concur in readings which are clearly false, or ex- 
ceedingly improbable, or very doubtful. See, for example, δὶ, 
Be, ie, U), TS Matt. xxvil.’49); 8) By ΟΝ Cop. Ech Syria 
eet...) Mark it, 14); 8; B,D, Ly AnMark vi22 5 ΒΒ ΓΕ 
Pukei17 ss, B, DU, X, 33, Lukexy 2ies B*)C*, Johmi., πε; 
Sell, 233, jon it 135° ΒΡ Li leo Arete. [ohn vin, Se 
8, B, H, L, P, 61, Acts xii. 25 G@mpossible). See also for x, 5, 
in particular, Matt. vi. 8; xvi. 21; Mark iv. 21 (iné for ἐπί, 
impossible) + ἘΠ Θ᾽ xxii) 32; Acts, xvipeg2 James ἢ 17. 
Peter 1. 13. As to the cursives, those first named above are 
nearly, some of them perhaps quite, equal in value to 33 zz 
the Gospels ; 1, 22, and 200, especially, are often right where 
IeeisewEOne.. SCe,;¢.2.,, Matt: va AA sina 1: xix, TG) ΤῊ: 
Luke xi. 2, 4, and numberless other passages, 


* See Scrivener’s Jutroduction to the Criticism of the New Testamtent, p. 167, and Addenda 
to do., p. ix. (2d ed., 1874); [see 3d ed. (1883), p. 181]. 


276 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Such being the state of the case, the MS. authority for 
εἶμ. θεός, though important, cannot be regarded as in itself 
decisive. 


1. ANctENT VERSIONS. — For θεός, the Coptic or Mem- 
phitic (3d cent., or perhaps even the 2d), Peshito Syriac (in 
its present form, 4th cent. ; so Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, 
Crowfoot, Payne Smith, Lightfoot), Harclean Syriac in the 
margin (A.D. 616), Aethiopic (4th or 5th cent.) in the Roman 
edition. 

For viéc, Old Latin (2d cent.), a, b,c, e, f, ff, 1, fileas, q fil. det; 
Vulgate (a.p. 384), Curetonian Syriac (2d cent.), Jerusalem 
Syriac (5th cent. 9), Harclean Syriac in the ¢ex¢ (here proba- 
bly = Philoxenian, a.p. 508), Aethiopic in Platt’s edition, 
which is the best; Armenian (¢z7. A.D. 431). 

Though Wilkins and Malan (Gospel of St. John) in their 
translations of the Coptic give its reading as “the only- 
begotten of God,’ and are followed by Scrivener and 
McClellan, this is doubtless an error; see Schwartze’s note 
21 loc. 


III. Farners. — (In citing their names, the year when 
they flourished is noted, generally as assigned by Cave.) 

For θεός, Clem. Alex.!, once, but once in reference υἱὸς θεός ; 
Excerpta ex Theodoto (Valentinians), 2d cent. (9); Epiphan.3 
three times, and one ref.; Didym. Alex.*° twice, and one 
ref. (?); Cyr. Alex.“ four times, and one ref., but υἱός three 
times (Opp. iv. 103%, v. i. 365°, VI. i. 90”), also (allus.) 6 μὸν ron 
θεοῦ λόγος (VI. 1. 187°). Perhaps 24 Synod of Ancyra*® one ref., 
and Greg. Nyss.*° one ref. and eight allusions (Opp. iii. 291°, 
and in addition to what Tisch. cites, ii. 432°, 478", 506°, 595 
[605 ]*, 691°), but υἱός twice in similar allusions (Opp. ii. 466", 
ill. 648°), and ὁ ἐν ὑψίστοις θεός once (i. 697°). The inconclusive- 
ness of such references and allusions is illustrated in £470. 
Sac. (as above), pp. 855-857; see also below, p. 280. 

No quotation of the passage with the reading deus has 
been produced from any Latin Father.* 


*The apparent exception in the case of Hilary (De Trin. xii. 24, Migne x. 4482) is merely 


ON THE READING ‘ ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD” 277 


For υἱός, Iren.48°, in a very ancient Latin version, has once 
filius dei, once filius, and once deus; in the first two cases 
the context favors fi/ius ; Hippol., 3d Syn. of Antioch®, 
Archelaus®”’ (Disp. c. Man. c. 32, in an Old Lat. version ; 
Migne x. 1479), Alexander of Alexandria®®, Euseb.3” six 
times, and one ref. (see below), Eustathius of Antioch®” (De 
Engastr. c. 18, Migne xviii. 652°), Athanas.®° four times, and 
tiree ‘xet., Psend-Athan™™ (Cont. Sabé.c, 2, Migne xxviii. 
100°), the Emperor Julian®? twice (ap. Cyr. Alex. Opp. v1. 11. 
B33), ‘Vit. Bostr. once; and once’ utc betcy (Greg. Naz.2°, 
Psendo-Basil."” (Hom. in’ Ps: xxviii, Ὁ. 3; Opp: 12359), im- 
properly cited by Tisch. as if genuine), Rufinus Syr. or 
Palaest.**™ (De Fide, c. 16, in a Latin trans. ; Migne, Patrol. 
Batis Visi), Chrys. eight) tunes, (iicody, Mapas aan 
oh is 20); Miener Ixvi.,.733°),. Pheodoret | tour times, 
Proclus*#, Pseudo-Cyril (5th cent. ?) (De Trin. Ὁ. 6, Migne 
Ixxv. 1153; Cardinal Mai published this as Cyril’s; I have 
followed Dr. Tregelles, Printed Text, p. 232, note 7), Andr. 
Cret.8° (Or. in Transf., Migne xcvii. 940°), Joan. Damas- 
cen.”0 five times (Migne xciv. 789"; xcv. 204%, 216°). So the 
later Greek Fathers, as Germanus’} (Rev. Eccl. Cont., Migne 
xCvili, 429°, or Gall. xiii. 215°), Theod. Stud.28 twice (Migne 
xcix. 396°, 1216°), Andr. presb., Theophyl., Euthymius three 
times (Migne cxxix. 1125, 1128°; cxxx. 1296°); see above, 
p. 262. Probably, Cyril of Jerusalem®” (see above, p. 260) ; 
and perhaps Nonnus*” ; see Tischendorf. 

The Latin Fathers all support υἱός. So Tertullian?” once, 
and one allusion, Hilary** seven times, Phoebadius®” once 
(Cont. Arian. c. 12, Migne xx. 21), Victorinus Afer®? six 
times, Hilarius diaconus?” or Auct. Quaest.ex utrogue Test. 


apparent, the ‘ unigenitus deus” forming no part of the quotation from John i. 18, just as “f Jesus 
Christus” forms no part of the quotation from Rom, ix. 5, and as “‘ unigenitus deus” is no part of 
the quotation from 2 Tim. i. 9, a little below (c. 26). What precedes and follows shows that the 
whole stress of Hilary’s argument rests on the word es¢. Chrysostom argues in just the same way 
from the ὁ ὧν in this passage (Opp. i. 476, 4772, and vili. 872), ed. Montf.); see also Epiphan. 
Ancor. c. 5, Basil. Adv. Exnom. iv. 2 (Opp. i. 281, 282 [399]), and Greg. Nvss. ddv. Eunom. 
lib. x. (Opp. ii. 680-682). Dr. Tregelles’s ‘et in sequentibus s@fe” is wholly misleading, if he 
means that this is anything more than the application by Hilary of a favorite appellation to Christ. 
Hilary has quoted John i. 18 with the reading /i/7ws seven times, and the passage De Trin. viv 
39 proves that he did not read deus. 


278 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Pars II. qu. 1 (ap. Augustini Opp. 1. ii. 3099", ed. Bened. 
2") once, Ambrose*! seven times, Jerome once (In Ezek. xliv. 
I seqq.), Faustinus** four times, Augustine*® three times, 
Adimantus the Manichzean®%, Maximinus the Arian*® twice, 
Vigilius of Tapsa (?)*! three times (Migne Ixii. 2657, 393%, 
395°), Junilius®°, Alcuin’, and so on; see, for references, 
above, pp. 263-265. Fulgentius should not be cited, as 
he is by Tisch. for fézws, and by Treg. for dews. He has 
nowhere, properly speaking, guoted the passage ; his a//usions 
(Migne lxv. 272°, 454°, 459°, 583°, 679°, 681) are all quoted 
in the Bzb. Sac., p. 857. [above, p. 257]. 


Doubtful. τ. Origen? has the reading θεός twice (Opp. iv. 
89, 438, ed. De la Rue). Here, however, the very literal 
version of Ferrari, made from a MS. now lost, reads wzzgenitus 
alone, in both places (see Huet’s ed. of Origen’s Comm. 11. 

406), though De la Rue has added deus in the second 
instance. A translator might regard fi/zus as superfluous 
with wuzgenitus, but not so dews. On the other hand, Origen 
has ὁ pov. υἱός once, Cont. Cels. τι. 71 (Opp. 1. 440). So De la 
Rue and Lommatzsch, from two MSS. ; Hoeschel’s ed., from 
a single MS., reads καὶ pov. ye ὧν θεός, which bears clear 
marks of being a marginal gloss.* In another quotation of 


* Compare the interpolation in Hoeschel’s edition of the same treatise, lib. i. c. 63, by which 
Origen is made to quote τ Tim. i. 15 thus: ... Ιγσοὺῦς Χριστὸς ὁ θεὸς ἦλθεν εἰς τὸν 
κόσμον ἁμαρτωλοὺς σῶσαι, Where De la Rue omits ὁ θεός on the authority of four MSS. and 
the Philocalia. A similar gloss has apparently been added to the text in Euseb. De Eccl. Theol. 
i. 9, p- 674: ὁ μον. υἱός, ἢ “ον, θεός, ὁ ὧν, K.T.A, The context seems clearly to show that 
Eusebius read υἱός" here, as in five other places; see above, p. 259. Such a mode of designat- 
ing an alternate reading, as we mu-t otherwise suppose, is almost unexampled. Not wholly 
so; see Origen, Comm. tn Foan. τ. Xxvill. C. 14, Opp. iv. 3920, who cites Heb. 11. 9 in this way: 
συν χρήσεται τῷ ὕπως χάριτι, ἢ, χωρὶς θεοῦ ὑπ ὲρ TAVTOC γ εὔσεται θανάτου. See, on the 
other hand, Origen’ s mode of citing the passage, Opp. iv. 416, Nunc Geov . . . 7 ὑπερ ἔν τισι 
κεῖται... ἀντι ράφοις. γάρ'τι θεοῦ. For other remarkable instances of interpolation or 
corruption of the text in MSS., see Wetstein’s V. 7. ii. 596, last paragraph, and 86s. 

Tt may be well here to notice a passage in which Eusebius adZows the appellation j0v07 EVIC 
AsAc as applied to the Son, though he does not affirm that it is given him in scripture. He says 
(De Feel. Theol. iii. 6, p. 1752), “And he alone [the Father] may be called (v ρηματίζοι ἀν) 
One God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, while the Son may be called Only-begotten God, he 
who is in the bosom of the Father. but the Paraclete (07 Helping) Spirit can be called neither God 
nor Son. since he has not like the Son been generated from (ἢ ἐκ) the Father, but is one of the beings 
made through the Son.” T would here thank Professor Drummond for pointing out an error in 
mv former translation of this passage (Bib. Sac., p. 860, note); and would refer to his article for 
a full exhibition of the quotations of Eusebius with their context, which leave no room for doubt 


ON THE READING “ΟΝΙΥ-ΒΕΘΟΤΤΕΝ GOD ” 279 


John i. 18 (Opp. iv. 102), De la Rue and Lommatzsch edit 
ὁ μον. υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ - the earlier ed. of Huet reads υἱὸς θεός. A little 
after, in two allusions, we find ὁ μονογενής alone (Opp. iv. 102, 
114). Again we have ina quotation (in Rufinus’s translation) 
wnigenttus det filius (Opp. ill. 91), where the context confirms 
the reading, having wzzgenztus filius just before in an allusion 
to the passage. 

As to the variations, the occasional addztion of τοῦ θεοῦ or 
det, as in the Old Lat. ὦ, Irenzeus, Victorinus (Ad Cand. 16), 
Auct. Quaest. qu. 91, p. 2913 (Augustint Opp. 111. 11.}.ἕ Ful- 
gentius (allus., De Fide, 17), or of θεός (Clem. Alex. and Tit. 
Bostr. above), for the sake of strengthening the expression, 
or the omzsszon of υἱός and filius, as by Cod. gat. of the Vulg., 
Pseud-Ignat., Origen (see above),* Aphraates® + (Hom. vi. 
pap prs) Wright, -allus:), Cyril ‘of Jeny Epiph!(@))Ciiys: 
(Opp. i. 475°, ed. Montf.), Nonnus, Psexa-Ath. (Q. ad Ant. 
28), Max. Conf.®° (/z Dion. Ar. Ep. ix.), Victorinus (Adv. 
Fiat 15), Anibriy Vici) Taps. {ΠΟ πε, Ix.) 260%, 366°) and 
Fulgentius (De Jvc. c. 18, allus.), as unessential, would be 
natural enough if ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός was the original reading ; but 
if θεός were genuine, υἱός would hardly be inserted before it, 
and it would not be easily omitted. 

In Orig. Opp. iv. 92, cited by Treg. and Tisch., we have 
merely the expression “ unigenitus deus salvator noster,” with 
no sign of even an allusion to John i. 18. The like is true of 
Wire ap. us. ΒΡ τὸς and Isid, ΕΙΣ Ap. τὺ o5, cited, by 
Tregelles. Dr. Tregelles further cites twelve writers as 
using the phrase μονογενὴς θεός or untgenitus deus “ saepissime, 
... tanquam nomen Jesu in Scriptura tributum.” A careful 
examination of these writers will show, if I have made no 
mistake, that only ove of them (Greg. Nyss.) intimates that 


that he here read υἱός (Theol. Review, pp. 480-482). It may be added that Tischendorf and 
Tregelles have not noticed the quotation of John i. 18 by Eusebius in his Comm. on Is. vi. τ 
(Migne, xxiv. 1214). On the other hand, Euseb. De Eccl. Theol. ii. 14, p. 123), referred to by 
‘Tregelles and Tischendorf, is not a quotation. 

ἜΤΗ Origen’s comzwzent on the passage, as given in the scholion from Codex 237 by Matth-ci 
(WV. 7. Gr. et Lat. iv. 23, 24), υἱός is alsoomitted. This scholion is instructive as showing how 
θεός might creep in: ὁ μονογενής, φησίν, OV προεῖπον OTL θεός, OTL φῶς, K.TA, 

+ Quoted by Tisch. as Iacnisib; but see Wright. 


280 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


this is a name given to Christ in scripture; not one of them 
expressly quotes John i. 18 with the reading μὸν. θεός or wnzg. 
deus; four of them do expressly quote it with the reading 
pov. υἱός or unig. filius (viz. Greg. Naz., Tit. Bostr., Vigil., 
Alcuin); four certainly, perhaps five, have used the phrase 
but ozce each, in their extant writings (Bas. Sel., Arius, 
Lucian, Gaudent., and perhaps Greg. Naz.) ; and two of them 
have never used it at all (Tit. Bostr., Prudentius). For details, 
see above, pp. 243, 244, 246 note, 266 note, 267 note. 

2. Basil the Great*, according to the text of the Bene- 
dictine edition, has θεός once (with five MSS.) where earlier 
editions read υἱός, and once mentions “True Son, Only- 
begotten God, Power of God,” etc., as names given to Christ 
in scripture. On the other hand, he quotes the passage 
twice with the reading vise. In the first case (Opp. 111. 23) 
the six MSS. of Garnier appear to support this reading, but 
one of Matthzi’s Moscow MSS. has θεός. In the second 
(Opp. iii. 358), Garnier notes no variation in his ten MSS., 
and Matthzei’s MS. also has υἱός, 

The imprudence of inferring the reading of John 1. 18 from 
the mere assertion of a Father that Christ is called or named 
in scripture the Only-bezotten God was illustrated above, 
pp. 255-257. See also Theodoret, Maer. Fab. v. 2 (Opp. 
iv. 383-387, ed. Sirmond; Migne, vol. Ixxxili.), who says, 
“ All the apostles zame (ὑνομάζουσι) him Genuine and True Son 
of God”; and, farther on, “the divine John the Evangelist 
calls (καλεῖ) the same both λόγον προαιώνιον, καὶ μονογενῆ υἱόν͵ καὶ τῶν 
ἁπάντων δημιουργόν, rrr. Again: “ They name (ὀνομάζουσι) him 
both Χριστόν, καὶ ἀΐδιον υἱόν, καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ovvaidiov,”” Again : “ie- has 
been named (ὠνόμασται) not simply λόγος, but θεὸς λόγος. 50 
Epiphanius (Ancor. c. 28) speaks of the Father as “calling 
(καλοῦντα) the Son ovrdyuorpysv,” referring to Gen. i. 26. Such 
language is often used of titles which the Fathers regarded as 
justified by scripture, though not expressly given. We can- 
not, therefore, attach much weight to the evidence of the 


Synod of Ancyra, or to the references of Gregory Nyssen 
and Basil. 


» 


3. Pseudo-Cesarius (7th cent. ὃ) is cited by Tischendorf, 


ON THE READING ‘f ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD " 281 


as also in the Bb. Sac., for the reading υἱός (Dial. i. 4; Migne 
XXVIII. 864). But the context (Tiva τοῦτον, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ θεόν; καθὼς φησὶν ὁ 
᾿Ιωάννης: Ὁ μον. υἱός, ὁ Ov ἐν τοῖς κόλποις, κτλ.) so naturally suggests 
the conjecture that θεός should be here substituted for υἱός, 
that I now prefer to treat the reading as doubtful. The 
deity of Christ may, however, have been merely zzferred 
from μονογενής and ὁ ὧν ἐν τοῖς κόλποις, as it is by Chrys. 7 loc., 
Greg. Naz. (Or. xxix. al. xxxv. 17), Junilius (De Part. div. Leg. 
i. 16), and others. Euseb. De Eccl. Theol. 1. 10, p. 68”. 

There is some doubt about Irenaeus and Cyril of Alexan- 
dria ; see above. 


On a review of the external evidence it will be seen that 
the MSS. which read θεός are of the highest rank, though few 
in number, — weighty authorities, but not decisive ; while 
the testimony of the ancient versions, and the quotations of 
the passage by the Christian Fathers, decidedly favor υἱός. 
We trace both readings to the second century ; but we find 
θεός supported almost wholly by one class of authorities, the 
Alexandrian or Egyptian; while the witnesses for υἱός are far 
more widely diffused as well as far more numerous, repre- 
senting all quarters of the Christian world. The whole 
Western Church seems to have known no other reading. 
The Syrian and Palestinian Fathers, with all the Syrian ver- 
sions but the (revised?) Peshito, support it, as well as those 
of Asia Minor and the Byzantines, while the Alexandrian 
witnesses are divided. Though the majority of these favor 
θεός, Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius support υἱός, the 
latter by repeated and unequivocal quotations. Origen’s 
MSS. and those of Cyril may have had both readings. 

The number of Fathers that can be relied on with con- 
fidence as witnesses for θεός is very small. Besides the 
Excerpta ex Theodoto mentioned above, there are but Zzvo 
who have expressly quoted the passage with the reading θεύς 
only, — Epiphanius and Didymus. Didymus became blind 
at four or five years of age, and quotes from memory, often 
making mistakes ; while Clement of Alexandria and Epipha- 
nius are notorious for the looseness and inaccuracy of their 


282 CRITICAL ESSAYS: 


citations from scripture. The uncertainty of mere allusions, 
and of assertions that Christ is called μονογενὴς θεός in scripture, 
has already been illustrated. It is proper to state these facts, 
and to give them due weight; but in the present case I 
would not lay great stress upon them, in disparagement of 
the testimony for θεός, The indisputable authorities for θεός 
give strength to evidence which, standing alone, would be 
weak,” 

It has been imagined that the ΔΖ: of the Fathers who read 
θεός 15. more trustworthy than that of those who have υἱός. 
This point is carefully examined by Professor Drummond, who 
maintains that there is not one passage in their quotations 
“‘where any serious difficulty would be presented by. the 
context if υἱός were substituted for θεός. We have already 
seen the probability of corruption from marginal glosses in 
two passages of Origen and Eusebius. On the other hand, 
in the case of some of the more important witnesses for θεός, 
as Eusebius, Athanasius, and Chrysostom, and also of Hilary 
and other Latin Fathers, the context in several places renders 
the reading υἱός absolutely certazn. (See above, pp. 259- 
261 notes, 247 note, or Theol. Review, pp. 480, 482 Ὁ, 492, 
488 ; also Alford’s note zz loc. for Hippolytus and Tertullian.) 
In reasoning on this subject we must not forget that the 
phrase μονογενὴς θεός, though “ only-begotten God” is strange to 
us, was familiar to transcribers in the third, fourth, and fifth 
centuries, and suited the prevailing taste. 

But how could the phrase ὁ μονογενὴς θεός have become so 
familiar if θεός was not here the primitive reading? In the 
same way in which ὁ θεὸς λόγος, “God the Son,” and a little 
later θεοτόκος, as applied to the Virgin Mary, became current, 
though not found in scripture. The appellation ὁ θεὸς λόγος, 
which so often occurs in the Fathers from Melito and Clement 
of Alexandria onward, was readily formed from John i. 1; 
and when υἱός was regarded as a synonym of λόγος, and imply- 
ing generation from the divine substance, nothing was more 
natural than the formation of such expressions as ὁ μονογενὴς 
θεός OF 6 μον. θεὸς λόγος, unegenitus deus, unigenitus deus verbum, 
which occur abundantly in writers who we vow read only 


ON THE READING “ ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD ” 28 
3 


υἱός or fidzws in John 1. 18. Though not equally suiting all 
tastes, the expression was a favorite one with many among 
the Orthodox and the Arians alike, who were pleased with it 
for different’ reasons (see above, p. 267). It was enough 
that it was regarded as authorized by necessary wference from 
scripture. No quotation of John 1. 18 with this reading has 
been found in any Arian writer. 


We are now prepared to consider the internal evidence. 
It may be urged that if the original reading was θεός, vide 
might be readily substituted for it, unconsciously, after 
μονογενής, Which naturally suggests it, and is connected with it 
in three other passages. This is true. On the other hand, 
if υἱός was the original reading, it may be said that in this 
place, forming the grand conclusion of the Prologue which 
began with predicating θεός of ὁ λόγος, θεός would be a natural 
marginal gloss, which would easily find its way into the 
text.* It may also be said that the phrase ὁ μονογενὴς θεός being 
familiar to copyists of the third and following centuries, θεός 
would easily be unconsciously substituted for υἱός, especially 
as the θεόν which precedes would suggest the word, and the 
resemblance of yc and @¢, or of -ncyioc and -ucec (υἱός being 
often unabbreviated in the oldest MSS.), would facilitate the 
change. (For the dots over the initial y a dash was often 
substituted, which might, on a hasty glance, be connected 
with the final oc.) Abundant illustrations of transcriptural 
error originating in both the ways now supposed might be 
given. For the mechanical repetition of a word suggested 
by the context, see Mark iv. 21, where the absurd ὑπὸ τὴν 
Auxviav in &, B*, 13, 33, 69, is due to the previous occurrence 
of ὑπό twice in the same verse. 


* “Nomini υἱός nomen θεὸς modo substitutum, modo adjectum est. Utrumvis glossema, 
collato v. τ, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, suaviter tinniebat” (Bengel, Af. ΟΥ̓. p. 217). In illustra- 
tion of the fact that such a combination as ovoy ενῆὴς θεός was not likely to offend transcribers, 
and possibly of what Tischendorf calls the “studium in summa antiquitate appellationis fJeo?) in 
Christum conferendae,”’ we may note that Codex A in John xix. 40 for τὸ σῶμα Tov ᾿Τησοῖ" reads 
TO σῶμα Tov θεοῦ, and that in John xviii. 32, for ὁ λόγος Tov ᾿Τησοῦ... σημαίνων ποίῳ 
ἠανάτῳ ἢμελλεν ἀποθνήσκειν, L, Δ. 59» 259, read ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, κιτ.). The reading of 
$&* Luke viii. 40, τὸν θεόν for αὐτόν. probably arose from a mechanical repetition of the ΟΝ in 
αὐτόν in the MS. copied. See also the note on p. 278, above. Comp. the various readings in Rey. 
xl. τον 


284 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


It would seem, then, that on the supposition of the genu- 
ineness of either reading we may plausibly explain the origin 
of its rival. But other important considerations come in to 
turn the scale. Had θεός been the original reading, its 
uniqueness and its dogmatic significance must have forced 
attention to it from the beginning, and preserved it from 
change. Sanctioned by the authority of an apostle, and of 
course in accordance with his oral teachings, it could not be 
a stumbling-block. It would have been constantly quoted 
and appealed to, like the first verses of the chapter. So 
wide-spread a corruption as we are compelled to assume, if 
υἱός is not genuine, seems, under these circumstances, alto- 
gether incredible ; while we can easily explain the existence 
of θεός in the comparatively few authorities that support it. 

Under another aspect the internal evidence is still more 
unfavorable to θεός. The expression μονογενὴς θεός not only has 
no parallel elsewhere in the New Testament, but its introduc- 
tion here, after θεόν used absolutely, produces a harshness and 
confusion which it is almost impossible to suppose in any 
writer ; υἱός, on the other hand, seems almost required as a 
counterpart to the πατρός which follows, and also accords with 
John iii. 16, 18, and 1 John iv. 9. 

Such being the state of the case, with the highest respect 
for the eminent critics who take a different view, I am con- 
strained to regard both the external and the internal evi- 
dence, when fairly stated and weighed, as decidedly in favor 
of the reading vide. 

Professor Lightfoot (as before referred to) suggests that the 
reading μονογενὴς θεός in this passage may be regarded as a com- 
pensation for the loss of θεός in 1 Tim. 111. 16. Dr. Tregelles 
(Printed Text, etc., p. 234) appears to have viewed it in the 
same light. But it may well be questioned whether, if the 
genuineness of θεός here were demonstrated, its bearing would 
be favorable to the Athanasian doctrine. Standing without 
the article, in contrast with θεόν used emphatically and abso- 
lutely, it would seem almost necessary to regard the word as 
used in a lower sense, as Origen (Jz Foan. t. ii. 88. 2, 3, Opp. 
iv. 50 ff.) and Eusebius (De Eccl. Theol. ii. 14, 17) take the 


ON THE READING “ ONLY-BEGOTTEN GOD ”’ 285 


predicate θεός in ver. 1; and we should thus have, not the 
ecclesiastical doctrine of the proper deity of Christ, but a 
δεύτερος θεός, like the Logos of Philo. The ancient Arians 
were very ready to call the Son ὁ μονογενὴς θεός ; this appellation, 
in their view, happily distinguished him from the Father, 
who alone was God in the highest sense, as unbegotten, 
uncaused, and without beginning. 


XIV. 


NOTE ON THE TEXT OF JOHN VIII. 44. 


[Prepared at the request of the New Testament Company of the American Biblical Revision 
Committee. ] 


WE are unable to accept ἕστηκεν, regarded as the imperfect 
of στήκω, as the true reading in this passage. 

1. Because there appears to be no proof of the use of an 
imperfect of στήκω in the whole range of Greek literature. 
The existence of the form στέκω, with an imperfect ἔστεκον, in 
modern Greek (Mullach, Gram. der griech. Vulgarsprache, 
p. 299) does not go far toward rendering probable the use of 
éoryxov aS an imperfect in the first century. 

2. It is certainly not found elsewhere in the Septuagint or 
the New Testament. The pluperfect form of ἴστημι is always 
there used, as in classical Greek, for the intransitive 1mper- 
fect, occurring thus in the Septuagint at least thirty-three 
times, and in the New Testament fourteen times, seven of 
which are in the Gospel of John. How great the improbability 
that in the face of this usage we should find here a needless 
form, of which no other example has been produced ! 

3. The perfect ἐστηκῶν, in the sense of the present, is 
entirely suitable to the context. The devil “standeth not 
in the truth” practically, “because truth is not in him” asa 
principle of action: a regard for the truth does not belong to 
his nature. The imperfect would give a less appropriate 
sense: it is the permanent character of Satan, what he zs, 
not what he was doing, or was in the habit of doing, at some 
past time, which gives point to the representation of him as 
“the father” of the truth-rejecting Jews. 

4. No one of the Greek Fathers who have cited or com- 
mented on the passage appears to have regarded εὔτηκεν as an 
imperfect. Origen, /z Foan. tom. xx. § 22 (Opp. iv. 343 ss., 
ed. De la Kue), clearly takes the form as a perfect, in the 


NOTE ON JOHN VIII. 44 287 


, 
sense of the present: see p. 343°, εἰ δέ τις μὴ οὕτως Broi, οὐχ ἔστηκεν 
ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ ; Ρ. 345, ἡμεῖς μὲν οὖν τοῦ: ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ οὐκ [so Huet, 
Dela Rue] ἕστηκεν, ἀκούομεν οὐχ ὡς φύσιν τοιαύτην ἐμφαίνοντες [read ἐμφαί- 
νοντος, with ἘΠ ΠΕ} οὔτε τὸ ἀδύνατον περὶ Tov ἑστηκέναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ 
παριστάντες [read παριστάντος] ; and p. 345°, ὥσπερ ὁ διάβολος ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ 
ovy ἕστηκεν, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἀλήθεια ἐν αὐτῷ, οὕτως καὶ οἱ ἐκ πατρὸς TOV διαβόλου ὄντες 
ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ οὐχ ἑστήκασιν, ὅτι ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς. So Heracleon, 
quoted by Origen («bz swp.), who understands the οὐχ ἔστηκεν of 
the wature of the devil. So Cyril of Alexandria, De Ador. 
lib. vi. (Opp. 1. i. 184, 185, ed. Aubert), who, after quoting 
the passage, says: οὐχὶ πάντη Te Kai πάντως ἁμαρτοεπῆς,͵ 6 μὴ ἑστηκὼς ἐν TH 
ἀληθείᾳ, So Procopius Gazaeus on Exod. viii. 42 (Migne, Par. 
Gr. \xxxvii. 5 56) : Ὅρα ποσάκις ψεύδεται τὰς ὑποσχέσεις ὁ Φαραώ. ψεύστης 
γάρ ἐστι, καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ οὐχ ἕστηκε, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Σωτῆρος φωνήν͵ So 
apparently Chrysostom, /z Gen. Serm. vii. 2, Opp. iv. 676° 
(784), ed. Monte. : ψεύστης γάρ ἐστιν ἐκεῖνος, καὶ οὐδὲν ἀληθὲς φθέγγεται" 
Ἔν γὰρ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, φησίν, οὐ χ ἕστηκεν ἢ and Theophylact (272 loc.) : ᾿Αλλὰ 
καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ οὐχ ἕστηκεν ἐκεῖνος͵ ἀλλὰ τοῦ ψεύδους ἐστὶ πατήρ. So cer- 
tainly Euthymius (27 /oc.), who explains οὐχ ἕστηκεν by οὐκ ἐμμένει, 
οὐκ ἀναπαύεται, Irenaeus (Cont. Haer. v. 22. ὃ 2), according to 
the Old Latin version, though that reads s¢e¢zt, seems to have 
taken the verb as a present in sense: “ Quoniam diabolus 
mendax est ab mitiw, et tm veritate non stetit. Si itaque 
mendax est, et non stans in veritate,’ etc. In the allusion 
in Pseudo-Ignatius, Phz/ad. c. 6, ἔστηκεν is taken as a present. 
Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria in their comments on 
the passage, and Photius (Ad Amphil. Quaest. x\vii., Migne, 
Patr. Gr. ci. 352 ff.) in his long discussion, have nothing to 
the point; Eustathius, De Lngastrim. c. 4 (Migne, xviii. 620). 
But Photius (4d Amphil. Quaest. xlvii.) does seem to have 
taken corj«ev as present in signification : καὶ τό, μηδαμῶς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ 
ἑστάναι «7.2. (Migne, ci. p. 356°). So Cont. Manich. iv. ὃ (Migne, 
Cll. 192°): εἰ yap ἐστι ψεύστης, καὶ οὐδέποτε ἐν TH ἀληθείᾳ ἕστηκε : and 
the same is true of the Fathers cited in the Catenae of 
Corderius and Cramer on John, and the scholia given by 
Matthaei, V. 7. Gr. e¢ Lat. iv. 368-375. They certainly 
have nothing which suggests that eorjxey was read as an 
imperfect. Other quotations, e¢.g., by Clement of Alexandria, 


288 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Strom. i. 17 (Opp. p. 369, Potter) ; Origen (Opp. ii. 126°, iv. 
340°) ; Macarius Aegyptius, Hom. v. 3; Severianus, De Mund. 
Creat. Orat. vi. c. 2 (in Chrysost. Opp. vi. 497, ed. Montf.) ; 
and Cyril of Alexandria, Glaph. im Gen. lib. 1. (Opp. 1. 11. 18), 
and Jz Mich. iii. 8 (Opp. 111. 420), —throw no light on the 
matter. 

Augustine and other Latin Fathers explain the passage of 
the fall of the devil, being influenced by the s¢efzt of the Old 
Latin version, or versions, and the Vulgate. Didymus of 
Alexandria (Cont. Manich. c. 16) apparently zzfers the fall of 
Satan from the present ἕστηκεν, which suggests to him a con- 
trast with the past : Eé δὲ καὶ τὸ εἰπεῖν, Οὐκ [50 Basnage, Gallandi] 
ἕστηκεν, δεικνὺς [read δείκνυσιν 9] αὐτὸν πρότερον ἱστάμενον ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, So 
in his Comm. on Ps. v. 6 (Migne, xxxix. col. 1170), which is 
particularly worthy of notice. Epiphanius (Haer. xxxviil. 4, 
p. 279) in a very loose quotation of the passage substitutes 
the aorist ἔμεινεν for éoryxev; and Nonnus in his poetical Pava- 
phrase represents the word by μίμνεν, as he does the following 
. ἔστιν by ἦεν, referring the passage to the fall of the devil. 
Theodoret also (Haer. Fad. v. 8) finds this intimated : τοῦτο δὲ 
παραδηλοῖ, ὡς τῆς ἀληθείας ἐκτραπείς͵ τἀναντία τῇ ἀληθείᾳ προείλετο. But these 
references of the passage to the fall of Satan afford no ground 
for believing that any of the writers named took «orev here 
for an imperfect of στήμω. The aorist, not the imperfect, 
would have been the proper tense to describe that event. 

Be «lhe uncials: B,C, ἘΣ ΕΟ ΚΝ lt ye eae 
apparently, the great mass of the cursive MSS, and the 
Evangelistaries, read οὐχ before ἑστήκεν, 


But it may be said that the important MSS. which here 
read οὐκ for οὐχ, and the ancient versions which represent 
εστηκεν by a past tense, justify us in regarding the word as an 
imperfect. The facts in regard to the versions and the 
MSS. are indeed remarkable, and require explanation. Let 
us see what they are. 

1. The following important versions render eorjxev here by 
a past tense: the Old Latin and the Vulgate, which read 
stetit; the Memphitic, Thebaic, Gothic; the Armenian and 


NOTE ON JOHN VIII. 44 289 


Georgian (according to the Rev. S. C. Malan), and the 
Harclean Syriac in the ¢ext, which have a preterite tense ; 
and the Jerusalem Syriac (ed. Miniscalchi Erizzo, i. 66), 
which uses the imperfect. On the other hand, the Peshito 
Syriac, the Harclean Syriac in the margin, the Aethiopic, and 
the Slavonic have the present. (See Malan, The Gospel 
according to S. Fohn, etc., London, 1872.) Here it is particu- 
larly to be observed, that of the nine versions which use a 
past tense in translating only one has the imperfect. But 
how can we account for the use of a past tense? The 
answer is easy. It was naturally suggested by the ἀνθρωποκτόνος 
ἦν which precedes, and might also naturally be used by those 
who found in the passage, like Didymus, an implication of 
the fall of Satan. But if the Latin translators had taken 
eorykev AS an imperfect, they would have rendered it stadaz, not 
stetit ; and a similar remark applies to all the other versions 
but the Jerusalem Syriac. Most modern translators, includ- 
ing all the early English, have rendered the verb in the past 
tense ; and this rendering has been given by a host of scholars, 
from Erasmus, Beza, and Grotius down to the Rev. S. C. 
Malan, who yet never dreamed of an imperfect ἕστηκεν, This 
may serve to show the caution required in drawing inferences 
from versions. It would be imprudent to infer even from 
the isolated case of the Jerusalem Syriac that the translator 
either regarded ¢eoryxev as an imperfect, or read ἐστήκει or εἱστήκει. 
The Peshito renders éorjxe by the imperfect in Heb. x. ΤΙ. 

2. ‘Yhe support of ot« for ctx by x, B*, D, L, X, 4, A4, 1, 60**, 
253, and Scrivener’s i, w, P, may seem very strong in favor of 
ἔστηκε aS an imperfect. But may it not merely show that the 
scribes of those MSS. pronounced the perfect of ior incor- 
rectly without the aspirate ? 

There is reason for believing that there was at an early 
date much confusion in regard to the use of the aspirate in 
Attic Greek, not to speak of the well-known diversities in 
different dialects. See Franz, Elementa Epigr. Graecae, Berol. 
“1840, p. 111; and especially E. A. Sophocles, Aisz. of the 
Greek Alphabet, Cambridge and Boston, 1848, pp. 64, 65, and 
Adolph von Schiitz, Azstortza Alphabeti Attici, Berol. 1875, 


290 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


pp. 54-58. Speaking of the period Ol. 83, 3-Ol. 94, 2 (8.6. 
446-403), Schiitz remarks: “Spiritus asperi usus hac omni, 
aetate adeo inconstans fuit ac perversus, ut H nota saepissime 
aut ibi omissa sit, ubi scribenda erat, aut praescripta com- 
pareat ejusmodi vocibus, quae re vera spiritu aspero carent. 
Qua re apparet hunc sonum procedente tempore magis magis- 
que neglectum esse, ita ut postremo omnino non audiretur, 
neque quisquam in dicendo rationem ejus haberet.” He 
illustrates this by more than a hundred examples from vari- 
ous inscriptions, not including a long one which deserves 
particular notice, though it is exceptional in the extent of its 
irregularities; namely, No. 324 (Ol. 93, I = B.c. 408) in 
Kirchhoff’s Corpus Luscr. Atticarum, vol. i. (Berol. 1873). In 
this, according to Schiitz, out of sixty words which should 
have the rough breathing, it is wanting in twenty; while of 
two hundred and fourteen which should zo¢ have it, it is pre- 
fixed in one hundred and twenty-two, only ninety-two being 
correctly written. And it is to be specially noted that in 
this inscription, notwithstanding the fondness of the stone- 
cutter for the aspirate, we have EIZTEKOTA (Kirchhoff, p. 170, 
frag. c, 1. 19) for éoryxéra (on εἰ for « see Franz, p. 150), and 
KATIZTAZIN (Kirchhoff, p. τόρ, frag. a, 1. 4) for καθιστᾶσιν, 

It is well known that οὐκ and οὐχ are occasionally inter- 
changed in our oldest uncials. See Scrivener, Collatio Cod. 
Sinaiticz, Ὁ. lv. no. Ὁ; 2d ed-3" Cod, Bezae, Bp. ἘΠ esa 
Tischendorf, Prolegom. to LXX, pp. Xxxill., xxxiv.; and οὐκ for 
ai in (Cod. Alex. 1 Esdr. iv, 2. 12. Job ac 160; scocvin ae 
26. See also Buttmann, Gram. of N. T. Greck, p. 7, Thayer’s 
trans. ; and Moulton’s Winer, p. 48, note 1, 2d ed. 

The facts thus far stated, however, are not alone sufficient 
to explain the concurrence of so many important MSS. in the 
substitution of οὐκ for οὐχ in the present passage. Other 
points must be considered. The fact that the tenses of ἵστημι 
have partly the rough and partly the smooth breathing would 
naturally lead to exceptional diversities of pronunciation ; 
the very common aorist ἔστην being pronounced without an 
aspirate, there would be a tendency to treat the perfect and 
the pluperfect in the same way. That this tendency really 


NOTE ON JOHN VIII. 44 291 


operated strongly, notwithstanding the counteracting influence 
of the compounds ἀνῦ-, ἀφ-, ἐφ-, καθ-, μεθ-, ὑφίστημι, may be satisfac- 
torily proved. Occasionally the tendency to assimilation would 
take the other direction, and lead to the aspiration of such 
forms as ἔστησα and ἔστην. Of this also we find examples.* 

Unfortunately there is no instance except the one before 
us in the Septuagint or the New Testament in which any 
aspirated form of ἵστημι is preceded by a word like οὐκ or οὐχ, so 
that we cannot tell what phenomena would be presented by 
our oldest uncials in a similar case. For the evidence of the 
tendency referred to we must therefore depend upon such 
information as we can obtain respecting the use of the 
aspirate in the later uncials and the cursives. 

The collators of MSS. have not usually noted the breath- 
ings. This has been done, however, by Dr. Scrivener, in the 
case of irregularities, in his γε} Collation of fifty Manuscripts, 
added to his edition of the Codex Augiensis (1859); and an 
examination of his collation brings to light important facts. 

Scrivener cites here for the reading οὐκ ἔστηκεν the MSS. 
i, w, L** (2.2. 69**), P. But that reading affords no evidence 
that the scribes took eormev for an imperfect. This appears 
at once when the fact is stated, that in every one of the 
instances where the forms of the perfect and pluperfect of 
iormu Occur in the New Testament, some of Scrivener’s MSS., 
and often more than in the present case, prefix the smooth 
breathing. For example, we have Luke vili. 20, ἐστηκασιν, 
1, W, P; xxiii. 10, εἰστηκείσαν, w, L, H, P3 35, clorqxe, 1, w, H, P; 
49, εἰστηκείσαν, il Vv, W, H; FB; Zs semel ; John 1. 26, EOTIKED, 1; W, Ζ,᾿ 
Sem. ; 35, slornxe, i, v, w, H, P, sem.; vii. 37, also xviii, 16 and 
Me, ΤΠ, εἰστῆμει, 1, v; w, H,P ; Acts xxvi. 22, comxa, k, 0, p53) James 
V. Q, éormev, j,k, 0; Rom. xi. 20, éoryxac, and 1 Cor. vii. 27, 
éornxev, k,n, 0; Heb. x. 11, ἐστῆκε, k, m, n,o; Rev. ili. 20, éoryxa, 
ἘΠ m, n; xil. 4, éorjeev, ἃ, δ᾽, Ἐξ my my 

In regard to the use of the breathings in the later uncials 


* Codex 69 of the Gospels (Acts 31, Paul 37, Apoc. 14), collated by Scrivener (L Gosp., m Acts 
and Epp., f Apoc.), almost always aspirates eqr7cev,eoTHOaV, στῆ. The same is true of the 
scribe who in the tenth or eleventh century supplied Codex B with accents and breathings. See 
the preface of Kuenen and Cobet to their V. 7. ad fid. Cod. Vat. (1860), p. Ixxxvii. f. 


292 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


we have little information, except general statements as to 
their irregularity, and the evidence of this from fac-similes. 
There is an exception, however, in the case of Codex F of the 
Gospels, of which J. Heringa’s careful collation has been 
published by H. E. Vinke: Dzsputatio de Codice boreeliano, 
nunc Rheno-Trajectino, etc., Traj. ad Rhen. 1843, gto. This 
MS. reads ἐστηκεν, John 1. 26; ἐστήκατε, Matt. xx. 63 ἐστηκασιν, 
Matt. xii. 47; ἐστηκὼς, John vi. 22, and ἐστικὼς, John iil. 29; 
ἑστηκότων; Mark xi. 5; ἐστὼρ, John xii. 29; éordc, Matt. xxiv. 15, 
Mark xili. 14; éorwrec, -rac, τῶν; Matt. xx. 3, 6, xxvi. 73, XXVii. 
47 ; ἰστηκει, Matt. xii. 2, John 1. 35; and ἰστηκεισαν, Matt. xii. 46. 
Thus, of the twenty-seven examples which it contains of the 
perfect and pluperfect forms of ‘orm, the collator has expressly 
noted seventeen in which they have the smooth breathing. 

Another uncial MS. of the Gospels, Codex H at Hamburg, 
has been recently examined with reference to this matter by 
Dr. C. R. Gregory, of Leipzig, at the request of a member 
of our Committee, with a result still more striking. Of the 
thirty-one examples which it contains of the perfect and plu- 
perfect forms of ἵστημι, twenty-eight have the smooth breath- 
ing; two, the rough; and one is doubtful, having been altered 
from one to the other. The reading in the present passage 
is peculiar, — ovyeoryxev. Dr. Gregory has also made notes on 
the cursive MS. 234 of the Gospels (Acts 57, Paul 72) at 
Copenhagen. In the perfect and pluperfect forms of ἵστημε it 
has the smooth breathing ten times, and the original smooth 
has been altered to the rough six (or perhaps seven) times 
besides. It may be worth while to add that in the fac-simile 
of Codex 33 of the Gospels, given by Scrivener in his 
Introduction, 2a ed., Plate xii. No. 34 (3d ed., Plate xiii. No. 
39), the participle ἑστὼς has the smooth breathing. So in the 
fac-simile of Evan. 348, dated A.D. 1023, published by the 
Paigogr. Soc. Part 1x. (1870), pl. 130: 

As to the reading οὐκ ἕστηκεν [52] for ovy ἕστηκεν in one place 
in some editions of Origen and of Didymus (see above), and 
in Cyril of Alexandria (iv. 563, ed. Aubert), it may be a mere 
misprint; it is so treated by the later editors of Origen 
(Lommatzsch, 11. 264), Didymus (Migne, Patr. Gr. xxxix. 


NOTE ON JOHN VIII. 44 293 


1105), and Cyril (Pusey, ii. 100). If, on the other hand, it 
was derived from a MS., as may be the case, though it is 
nowhere so stated, we can only infer that the scribe pro- 
nounced the perfect ἔστηκεν without the aspirate. 


In view of the facts which have been presented, it appears 
that the evidence for an imperfect ἔστηκεν in this passage, 
though it may at first seem strong, breaks down at every 
point ; and till some proof of the actual use of an imperfect 
of στήκω shall be produced, we must regard its very existence 
as imaginary, 


XV. 


ON THE READING’ “CHURCH SOF COZ, 
ACTS sxe ace: 


[From the Bzblzotheca Sacra for April, 1876.*] 


Common Version: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, 
and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath 
made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which 
he hath purchased with his own blood.” ecetved Text: 
Προσέχετε οὖν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ, ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔθετο 
ἐπισκόπους. ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος. 
Various readings: οὖν, “therefore,” is bracketed by Lach- 
mann, and omitted by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Green (77wo- 
fold New Test..y and Westcott and Hort, but is retained by 
Alford and Wordsworth. For τοῦ θεοῦ, “God,” Lachmann, 
Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Green read τοῦ κυρίου, “the Lord” ; 
Alford, Wordsworth, and Westcott and Hort retain θεοῦ, But 
Tregelles places θεοῦ in the margin with a mark of interroga- 
tion, implying some doubt whether it should not be regarded 
as an alternative reading; and Alford, on the other hand, 
puts κυρίου in the margin, in large type, as of nearly equal 
authority with θεοῦ, All the editions named above read in 
the last clause διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου for διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος, 

Of those who have written treatises on the textual criticism 
of the New Testament, Porter, Davidson, and Hammond 
give the preference to κυρίου ; Scrivener and Milligan defend 
θεοῦ, Among recent commentators and translators, θεοῦ is pre- 
ferred by Dr. Gloag; on the other hand, Meyer, Ewald, 
Lechler (in Lange’s Bibelwerk) very confidently, Overbeck, 
Dr. David Brown (with hesitation), Holtzmann (in Bunsen’s 
Bibelwerk), the new Dutch translation (1868), and Weizsacker 
dopt the readin® κυρίον. 


* [The substance of this article was originally prepared at the request of the New Testament 
Company of the American Biblical Revision Committee. ] 


ON THE READING ‘“‘ CHURCH OF GOD” 295 


To recount the opinions of the earlier critics, or to give a 
sketch of the literature of the subject, would carry us too 
far. But as a mistake made by one scholar often leads many 
astray, it may be well to say that Matthaei does not read θεοῦ, 
as stated by De Wette, Davidson, and Alford, but κυρίου καὶ θεοῦ, 
in both of his editions ; that Gratz does not reject κυρίου, as is 
affirmed by Bloomfield (9th ed.), but adopts it; and that 
although Michaelis defends θεοῦ in his /utroduction to the New 
Lestament (4th ed., 1788), in a later work (Aumerkungen su 
seiner Uebers. d. N. T., 1790, 1. 407 ff.) he gives the preference 
to κυρίου as the best supported reading. 

The passage presents one of the most interesting and 
important problems in the textual criticism of the New Tes- 
tament; but no thorough investigation of the evidence for 
the different readings has been published, so far as I am 
aware, since the time of Wetstein. The recent accession of 
the Sinaitic MS. to the authorities for θεοῦ may be thought by 
some to turn the scale in its favor; and the fact that this 
reading is received inta the text by scholars so eminent as 
Professor Westcott and Dr. Hort might alone justify a new 
discussion of the question, if any excuse were needed. 

In stating the evidence for the different readings, we may 
begin with 

I. THE AUTHORITIES FOR κυρίου. 


2 [τῆς * 7 THA d ae wae) Gs {do YEG E age 
Manuscripts. —A, Οὗ, 1), E, xp Χο ΧΡ xm xm’ xP XI’ ΧΡ 

81 958 RO BASS τὴν 185 ΠΡ ΒΞ ΠΣ USBthe 
Mine Mow Mil). 0h, 4 KL KEW. XII) AT), PRUNE XII? 
all, four uncials and sixteen cursives.* As to date, two are 
supposed to be of the fifth century, two of the sixth, one of 
the tenth or eleventh, five of the eleventh, one of the eleventh 


or twelfth, four of the twelfth, four of the thirteenth, and one 


in 


sy ΔῊ det: 


ἜΤ omit Tischendorf’s “ cat”, by which he means not ‘‘ some catenae,’’ but the fex¢ of the 
MS. (New Coll. Oxford, 58), published by Cramer with its catena, in 1838. ‘lischendorf some- 
times cites this as ‘‘ cat’, sometimes as ‘‘ catox”’, but does not seem to be aware that it is identical 
with No. 36. Bloomfield ((γ 22. Annot., Lond 1860, p. 194) says, “1 am now, indeed, enabled 
to add to the evidence for hiy)/on, 9 Lam. and Scr. MSS." But pep here must be a mistake for 
Kupion καὶ θεοῦ. B-C. II. 7 is one of the Burdett-Coutts MSS. recently collated by Scrivener; 
see his [utroduction, 2d ed., ny. 277. =40 [3d ed., p. 236, MS. 549; it is now numbered 219 of the 
Acts; a’ in the list above is now luiown as 182 of the Acts]. 


206 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


of the fourteenth. Here the high character of the cursives 
which read κυρίου is particularly to be remarked. Eight of 
them, Nos. 13, 36, 40, 69, 73, 81, 95, and 180, are marked by 
Tischendorf with an asterisk in the Prolegomena to his 
seventh critical edition as noticeable for their agreement with 
the text of the most ancient copies; and there are three 
others at least, namely, Nos. 15, 18, and a, which deserve 
to be so marked. The first in the list, No. 13 (33 Gosp., 17 
Pauline Epist.), is said by Eichhorn to be “full of the most 
excellent and oldest readings.” He styles it “the Queen of 
the cursive manuscripts.” No. 40 Tischendorf designates 
as “codex admodum insignis;” it represents the text of 
Euthalius. No. 73 is called by Griesbach “praestantissimus ;”’ 
“optimis adnumerare non dubito,” says Birch (Variae Lect. 
1798, p. ix.). No. 180 is justly spoken of by Scrivener as 
“important.” Finally, Scrivener’s “a” represents, according 
to him, “ἃ very interesting and valuable text, .. . being found 
in harmony... with the most ancient MSS., and very con- 
spicuously with that most precious document designated... 
as p”’ (now 61, formerly Tischendorf’s “lo*”’). (utred. to 
Cod. Augiensis, p. lvi.) The excellence of most of the cur- 
sives that support κυρίου, in contrast with the inferior character 
of those which read θεοῦ, is an important point, and will be 
illustrated hereafter. 

ANCIENT Versions. — The Old Latin (second century), as 
shown by the quotations in all the earlier Latin Fathers (see 
below), confirmed more or less by the Latin interpreter of 
Irenaeus, and the Graeco-Latin MSS. D and E;* the Mem- 
phitic or Coptic (third century, or perhaps the second), the 
Thebaic or Sahidic (same date), the Armenian (fifth century), 
and the Harclean or Philoxenian Syriac (ΑἸ 616) in the 
margin, representing an Alexandrian MS. “very accurate 
and approved,’ according to Thomas of Harkel, and which 
certainly exhibits an early form of the text, though, like D, 
disfigured by interpolations. 


* Domintz is also the reading of the σφας Lzbrorum, published by Belsheim, Christiania, 1879, 
the only MS. of the Old Latin containing the Acts complete. 


ON THE READING “CHURCH OF GOD” 297 


FATHERS. — Irenaeus (czv. A.D. 180), Cont. Haer. iii. 14. ὃ 2, 
in a very early Latin version (already used, it is thought, by 
Tertullian) : Adttendite rgitur et vobts et omni gregi in quo vos 
Spiritus sanctus pracposuit episcopos, regere ecclesiam Domint, 
guan 5101 constituit per sanguinem suum. This is the more 
important, as it is part of a quotation embracing six verses 
(v. 25-30), and therefore probably not made from memory. 
I know of no particular reason for doubting that this version 
represents the Greck of Irenaeus ; certainly there is nothing 
in the context (pace Mr. Nolan) to suggest such a doubt ; and 
we may at any rate say with Lachmann, “licet aliquando non 
Irenaeum sed Latinos novi testamenti codices secutus sit 
[Latinus interpres], eos cum Irenaei libris in plerisque omni- 
bus consensisse multis documentis cognoscitur” (VV. 7. tom. 
i. p. x.). But if it be assumed, without proof, that the trans- 
lator here followed the Old Latin version instead of Irenaeus, 
we have at all events a testimony for κυρίου which reaches back 
to the second century. 

Apostolical Constitutions (third or fourth century ?), ii. 61. 
§ 4, an allusion rather than a quotation, and from which, 
though it favors κυρίου, we cannot draw any confident infer- 
ENCE : συντρέχετε εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ κυρίου, ἣν περιεποιήσατο τῷ αἵματι τοῦ 
χριστοῦ τοῦ ἠγαπημένου, τοῦ πρωτοτόκου πάσης κτίσεως. Here, according to 
Lagarde, Codices x, y, z, of the fourteenth and sixteenth cen- 
turies, but of different families, with the edition of Turrianus, 
which he follows, read κυρίου, while Codex w (A.D. 1111) has 
eos. Compare the allusion vii. 26. § 1; viii. 12. § 18. I do 
notmeclude 11,57: § 13’) vill. “TDS 2) AT ἢ see ἡ Peti-i. 
18, 19. The compiler of the Apostolical Constitutions, if he 
refers to Acts xx. 28, may possibly, though not very probably, 
have interpreted the διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου as equivalent to διὰ τ. 
aig. τ. ἰδίου υἱοῦ, as 15 done by Erasmus (Paraphr.), Limborch 
(though he prefers the reading κυρίου), John Milton, Lenfant 
and Beausobre, Doederlein, Van der Palm (note in his Dutch 
trans.), Granville Penn, and Mr. Darby. But if he read θεοῦ 
in the Acts, he would hardly have substituted the unusual 
expression, “the church of the Lord,’ which occurs else- 
where, I believe, but twice in the Constitutions (ii. 20. § 9, 


298 ἢ CRITICAL ESSAYS 


43. § 4), for his familiar phrase, “church of God,” which he 
uses at least sixteen or eighteen times. 

Athanasius (fl. Δ... 328, d. 373), in Ep. i. ad Serap. δ: 6, as 
edited, reads #eov; but Cod. Reg. 1, of the tenth or eleventh 
century, and “egregiae notae’’ according to Montfaucon, has 
κυρίου, and three other good MSS. χριστοῦ. (Athan. Opp. i. 
653°, ed. Bened., or ii. 544” in Migne’s Patro/. xxvi.) That 
the true text of Athanasius here is either κυρίου or χριστοῦ is 
made almost certain, I think, not only by the passage cited 
by Tischendorf from his treatise against Apollinaris, but by 
many other passages in the same work. See below, Supple- 
mentary Note A, p. 325 ff. 

Didymus of Alexandria (A.D. 309-395), De Trin. 11. 8. § 2 
(Opp. col. 621° in Migne’s Pazro/. xxxix.), quotes the passage 
Προσέχετε... διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος, with the reading κυρίου So also 
in his treatise De Spzritu Sancto, c. 24 (Opp. col. 1054°), as 
preserved in the Latin translation by Jerome. In a reference 
to the passage in Cramer’s Catena (p. 337), he uses the 
expression τῷ ποιμνίῳ ὃ περιεποιήσατο ὃ σωτὴρ TO ἰδίῳ αἵματι. 

Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407) quotes the passage with the 
reading κυρίου in Hom. xi. in Ep. ad Eph. (on Eph. iv. 12, Opp. 
xi. 83° (95), ed. Montf.). Here the MSS. of Savile, Mont- 
faucon, and Field present no variation, and Matthaei’s MS. 
of Chrysostom confirms the reading (see his V. 7. Gr. et Lat. 
Vili. 92, note on Eph. iv. 9). That Chrysostom’s text in his 
Comm. on the Acts,* as edited by Montfaucon, which reads 
ἤξου twice (Opp. 1x. 333 (372)), has been corrupted, as often 
elsewhere (see Tregelles, 7exrtual Criticism, p. 335), 15 proved, 
I think, by five distinct considerations: (a) By the context, 
as Mill perceived, ei ye ὁ δεσπότης ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐκκλησίας οὐδὲ τοῦ αἵματος 
ἐφείσατο τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ, κ. τ. λ., though this alone might not be decisive. 
(ὁ) By the extract in Cramer’s Ca¢ena on the passage (pp. 336, 
337), shown to belong to Chrysostom instead of Ammonius, 
not only by its contents, but, what has not been noticed, 


* That θεοῦ stands in the text prefixed to the comment is hardly worthy of notice, as editors 
and transcribers very often in such cases conformed the text to that of the copies with which they 
were familiar. See Wetstein’s WV. 7. ii. 867; also, Tischendorf’s notes on Acts xi. 20, p. 97, and 
1 Cor. vii. 5, p. 489, bottom. 


ON THE READING “ CHURCH OF GOD” 299 


expressly ascribed to Chrysostom (Toi Χρυσοστόμου instead of 
Tod αὐτοῦ) in the Paris MS. of this catena (Cod. Coislin. xxv., 
2.6. No. 15 of the Acts), which is much older and better than 
the Oxford MS. (see Cramer, p. 446, and his Preface, p. iv.). 
This catena reads twice, in both MSS., ποιμαίνειν τ. ἐκ. τοῦ κυρίου 
where Montfaucon has θεοῦ, Ἐς (Ὁ By the anonymous commen- 
tary on the Acts published by Finetti with the works of 
Theophylact, from a MS. in the Medicean Library at’ Flor- 
ence, and which here, as often elsewhere, abridges Chrysos- 
tom. This reads Ὁρᾷς; παρὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ἔχετε τὴν χειροτονίαν͵ ποιμαί- 
vew τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ κυρίου. ᾿Ἰδοὺ καὶ ἄλλῃ ἀνάγκη" τοῦ. κυρίου ἐστὶν ἡ 
ἐκκλησία.  (Theophylactt Opp., ed. De’Rossi and Finetti, iii. 
620%, or iil. 1115°in Migne’s Patrol. cxxv.) (d) It has not 
been observed that this reading of Chrysostom in the catena 
is further confirmed in part by one or more of Savile’s MSS. 
In his edition of Chrysostom (vol. iv. p. 855), for the text of 
Montfaucon, εἶτα, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκ. τοῦ θεοῦ, ἰδοὺ καὶ δευτέρα [sc. ἀνάγκη] " 
he gives the various reading, Ἰδοὺ Kai ἄλλη, τοῦ κυρίου ἐστὶν ἡ ἐκκλησία, T 
(e) Adding to these considerations the fact that Chrysostom 
on Eph. iv. 12 unquestionably reads κυρίου, we cannot reason- 
ably hesitate, I think, to regard the catena as preserving the 
tue yeadine here, . If) Dr. Tregelles, 15. mght (Pxuted, Lexi; 
p. 232) in regarding the Homilies on the Acts as not really 
Chrysostom’s, this last argument falls away; but the others 
appear to be decisive, and we have then two authorities for 
κυρίου instead of one.t 


*So the best MSS. of Chrysostom zz /oc., in the comment on the verse. This reading is 
accordingly adopted by the translators of Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Acts, in the Oxford Library 
of the Fathers. See Part II. (Oxford, 1852), p. 595, with the note, and Preface, pp. vi.-x., on 
the MSS. 


{In the case of another important passage, 1 Tim. iii. 16, Savile’s MSS. preserve, as I believe, 
the true reading of Chrysostom. In his How. xv. (al. xiv.) zz Foan. (on John i. 18, Opp. viii. 
86 (99), ed. Montf.), the printed editions read: Hi δὲ ἀλλαχοῦ φησι, θεὸ ς ἐφανερώθη ἐν 
σαρκί, μὴ Gavudorc* ὃτι ἡ φανέρωσις διὰ τῆς σαρκός, K.T.A, But here Savile (Chrys. 
Opp. ii. 613, 1. 27) gives the various reading, Διὰ τοῦτό φησίν, ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἡ γὰρ 
φανέρωσις,͵ κιτ. ἢ. This is confirmed by the Latin translation οἵ Chrysostom’s Homilies on 
John made in the fifteenth century by Francesco Accolti of Arezzo (Franciscus Aretinus), which 
reads: “" Propterea inquit, Ou7 manzfestatus est 771 carne,” etc. 

Cramer’s catena on 1 Tim. iii. τό likewise preserves the genuine text of Chrysostom in oppo- 
sition to the text of Montfaucon, and is here confirmed by an Old Latin version of this Father, as 
is remarked by Dr. W. H. Ward, in his valuable article on this passage in the Bzbléotheca Sacra 
for January, 1865, p. 26 f. 

} The translators of Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Acts, in the Oxford Library of the Fathers, 


300 GRITICAL ESSAYS 


Euthalius (5th century). See p. 296. 

Pseudo-Cyril (5th century ?), De sanctd et vivif. Trin. c. 26, 
published by Cardinal Mai as Cyril’s, but regarded by 
Dr. Tregelles (Account of Printed Text, p. 232, note 7), to 
whose judgment I defer, as belonging to a later author : Προσ- 
ἔχετε... κυρίου... διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου, (Cyrille Opp. Vitis 1 185°, 
in Migne Ixxv.) 

Constantine VI. and Irene, Letter to Pope Hadrian I. 
(Divalis sacra ad Hadrian. papam) at the time of the second 
Nicene Council (A.p. 787): “Εἰ iterum divinus . . . apostolus 
... sic mandavit: Pasctte gregem Domint cum disciplina, 
quam acquisivit proprio sanguine.” (Conctilia, ed. Coleti, vill. 
677°, 678°.) 

Theodorus Studita (a.D. 759-826), pest. lib. it. ep. 56: 
ὁρῶν οὕτω κινδυνεύουσαν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν͵ ἣν περιεποιήσατο κύριος διὰ τοῦ οἰκείου αἵματος. 
(In S¢rmondi Opp.. Var. v. 379°, or Migne xcix. 1260.) 

Antonius, compiler of Melissa* (8th century? 12th cen- 
tury ?), in “ Loci communes Sententiarum . . . collecti per 
Antonium et Maximum monachos,” etc., Genev. 1609 (ap- 
pended to Stobaeus), Sevm. clxxili. p. 286: Προσέχετε... κυρίου 


. διὰ τ. ἰδ. αἵματος. 


have shown that the text of these Homilies, as it appears in modern editions (as those of Com- 
melin, Savile, Morel [which commonly goes under the name of Fronto Ducaeus], and the 
Benedictines [‘‘ here not Montfaucon”’]), is founded on MSS. (particularly the Paris MS. No, 


cent. Xx. 
2 


which represent a corrupt recension of the text, in opposition to the Paris 
pD (Ε of Oxf. trans.) Ὶ Ρ P » in opp' 


MSS. No. qosnl, 7261", ΝΣ 
Α B ς 


, anda copy in the Library of New College, Oxford, which con- 


tain the old text, confirmed by the Catena of Andreas the presbyter (not later than the tenth cen- 
tury, for the MS. is of that age), Oecumenius, Theophylact, and the scholia in MSS. of the Acts. 
Savile has corrected words and phrases here and there from the New College MS. The Paris 
MSS. 728 and 73 suppl. ‘‘ exhibit a text compiled from old and new, and with alterations peculiir 
to itself. Of the six Parisian MSS. a full collation was made for ‘the Library of the Fathers’; 
of N, we have at present but a partial collation.” 

They have accordingly translated from this older text. (See Preface to the Homilies on the 
Acts, Part II., Oxford, 1852, pp. vi.-x.) 

I quote from their translation, p. 595: — 

“In which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God. See, it 
is from the Spirit ye have your ordination. This is one constraint: [then] he says, To feed the 
Church of the Lord.4 Lo! another obligation: the Church is the Lord’s. Anda third: which 
he hath purchased with hts own blood.” 

* Cave and many others call him Antonius Melissa. But this seems to be anerror. Melissa 
was the title of his compilation. 


“9 Hence it appears that St. Chrys. reads Kup/ov not Θεοῦ; in this text, though in the citation 
the scribes give it according to the other reading, Θεοῦ." 


ON THE READING “ CHURCH OF GOD” 301 


But this is not all. The quotations given by Wetstein 
(V. 7. u. 597, 598), to which I must content myself with 
referring for want of space, from Origen (a.D. 230),* Gregory 
of Nyssa (A.D. 370), Isidore of Pelusium (a.p. 412), Eutherius 
(not “ Eucherius’’) of Tyana (A.D. 419), Theodoret (a.D. 423), 
see especially his Third Dialogue, Nestorius (a.p. 428), 
and Joannes Maxentius (A.D. 520), —seem altogether incon- 
sistent with the supposition that they could have regarded 
“the blood of God” as a Scriptural expression. We may 
with great probability consider these writers as supporting 
the reading κυρίου, or possibly in some cases (as in that of 
Theodoret), χριστοῦ. To these I would add Eustathius of 
Antioch (fl. A.D. 325), who maintains that he has shown 
ἀπαθὲς τὸ θεῖον τοῦ χριστοῦ πνεῦμα (see the passages preserved by 
Theodoret in Migne’s Patrol. xviii. 681); who affirms, as 
quoted by Gelasius, ‘“vesaniunt et bacchantur et furiunt et 
insaniunt et suis mentibus excesserunt, qui Deo Verbo passi- 
onem applicare praesumunt”’ (Migne, xviii. 694) ; who says, 
as quoted in Syriac by Sabarjesus (Assemani, Bz6/. Orient. 
III. 1. 542), “51 quis dixerit Deum Verbum quascumque cre- 
aturarum passiones passum fuisse, maledictus esto in caelo et 
in terra,’ and who, like Theodoret, in discussing this ques- 
tion, meets the argument of his adversaries founded on 1 Cor. 
11. 8 (see Migne, xviii. 681°), but seems never to have heard 
of an argument from Acts xx. 28. Sabarjesus (zbzd.) also 
quotes “ Gregory” (“ perhaps Thaumaturgus,” says Asse- 
mani) as saying, “ Stultus est et insipiens qui affrmat Deum 
Verbum cum suo templo passiones tulisse.’’ Gregory of 
Nazianzus (fl. A.D. 370) is shocked at the idea that our Saviour 


*The passages of Origen cited by Wetstein are Cont. Ceds. ii. 36 (hardly relevant) and vii. 
16 (see cc. 13-17), Opp. i. 416, 705, ed. De la Rue. To these may be added Comm. in Yoan. 
t. Xxvill. c. 14, οὐκ ἀπέθανεν ὁ θεὸς λόγως, κ. τ. A, ; t+ Xxxil. c. 17, Opp. iv. 3924e, 446b; and 
especially Com. 7% Matt. τ. xvi. c. 8 ad fin., Opp. ill. 726, 727. ‘* The godhead of Christ,” as 
Redepenning remarks, “‘ Origen everywhere taught had no share in his suffering” (Orzgenes, ii. 
410, n. 7). The expression “ Deum crucifixerunt,” which Dr. Burton ascribes to Origen (Testz. 
of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Div. of Christ, pp. 223, 312), rests only on the notoriously 
untrustworthy authority of the Latin translation of Rufinus. (Origen, Opp. ii. 676b.) The 
reader of Dr. Burton’s book needs also to be warned that the comments ascribed to Origen in 
Catenae are often of very doubtful genuineness. See the Preface to vol. ii. of De la Rue’s 
edition. 


302 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


τῇ ἰδίᾳ αὐτοῦ θεότητι πάθος δέξασθαι (Eprst. cclll. ad Nectarium ; Opp. 
iii. 333°, in Migne xxxvii.). Amphilochius of Iconium (ΠῚ 
A.D. 370) also says: Ei μὲν οὖν θεότης ἔπαθεν, εἶπας τὸ βλάσφημον (Migne, 
Patrol. Gr. xxxix. 100"), with much more of the same sort 
(Migne, xxxix. 104°, 108°, 113°; and Sabarjesus in Assemani, 
as above). 

We may notice here some misleading references : Eusebius, 
Comm. in Isa. xxxv. Ὁ, 10 (Opp. vi. 341°, in Migne xxiv.), 
cited by Wetstein and many others, seems to me to prove 
nothing. The διὰ κυρίου belongs to Isaiah; and the οὖς αὐτὸς 
δηλονότι ἐλυτρώσατο τῷ ἰδίῳ αἵματι May as well refer to τ Ῥεῖ. 1. 18, 19, 
and Eph. i. 7, as to Acts xx. 28. Equally inconclusive is the 
passage referred to in the Epistle of Maximus to Nicander : 
καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ τὸν ταύτην δ αἵματος οἰκείου Kai ζωοποιοῦ κατὰ θέλησιν 
ἁρμοσάμενον κύριον (Opp. ed. Combefis, ii. 47, or Migne, xci. 92"). 
The Epistle of Ibas to Maris or Mares (not ‘“ Marinus’’) has 
been cited on both sides without reason. In the passage 
referred to, the Greek text or version reads “God,” while 
three zzdependent Latin versions have “Lord”; but the 
passage is not a quotation, and it may be doubted whether it 
contains even an allusion to Acts xx. 28. See Concilia, ed. 
(ΘΟ ΘΕ, iv. 1577", 15.78", vil 1932"; and ‘the ‘translationties 
Facundus Hermianensis, Pro Def. trium Capitulorum, \ib. Vi. 
c. 3 (Migne, lxviil. 665°). 

We come now to the Latin Fatuers. Their quotations 
are of interest only as serving to determine the reading of 
the Old Latin version. 

Lucifer of Cagliari (fl. a.p. 354, d. 371), De non parcendo in 
Deum delinquentibus (Migne, xiii. 997°): Attendite... regere 


ecclestam Domini... sanguine suo. 
The author of Quaest. Vet. et Nov. Test. (A.D. 370), Q. 97: 
Attendite . .. regere ecclesiam Domini Fesu (Migne, xxxv. 


2296). This is ascribed to Hilary the Deacon by Cave and 
many others, and was written, as Cave remarks, about A.D. 
370 (see Quaest. 44). It was formerly attributed to Augustine, 
and appears in many editions of his works. 

Jerome (czr. A.D. 345-420), pest. 146 (al. 85) ad Evangelum 
(al. Evagrium): Attendite...ut regeretis eccles. Domini... 


ON THE READING “ CHURCH OF GOD” 303 


sanguine suo. (Opp. 1. 1193; Migne, xxii.) So in his Comm. 
nm Ep. ad Ti. i. § (Opp. vil. 563; Migne, xxvi.): Attendite 
... pascere eccles. Domini... per sanguinem suum. That 
Jerome’s text is here faithfully preserved is evinced by the 
fact that the passage is cited in precisely the same words by 
Sedulius Scotus (8th or 9th century) in his Collect. tn Ep. ad 
Titum (Migne, ciii. 243"), who is here borrowing from Jerome; 
and by Amalarius of Metz (oth century), De Eccles. Offic. 11. 
13 (Migne, cv. 1089), who expressly quotes from Jerome. 

Ambrose of Milan (a.D. 340-397), De Spzr. Sancto, ii. 13. 
§ 152 (Opp. ii. 663, ed. Bened., or Migne, xvi. 775°): Atten- 
aie... regere eccles. Dei, as edited. But 1 has not been 
observed that the Benedictine editors in their appendix of 
“Variae lectiones inter omissas non contemnendae”’ inform 
us, ‘Quidam mss., vegere ecclestam Domini.” Now when we 
consider that this reading is supported by the other authori- 
ties for the Old Latin version, and that the tendency of 
transcribers would be to conform their text to that of the 
Vulgate rather than the reverse, it seems very probable that 
these MSS. represent the true reading of Ambrose. That 
he did not read Dez here is confirmed by various passages 
of lis writings: eg. De /ucarnm. Ὁ. vic ὃ 52: “cum»utique 
Scripturae dicant quia Christus secundum carnem passus est, 
non secundum divinitatem”’; comp. c. v. §§ 37, 40; De Fide, 
ΠΟ 38 50-58; c. 8, ὃ 65; and v: Οὐ τὸν» § 106, “quod crea- 
tura,omnis sine passione aliqua divinitatis Domenzct sanguinis 
redimenda sit pretio.”’ 

Arator (A.D. 544) in his poetical Paraphrase of the Acts, 
lib. ii. lines 850-853 (Migne, lxvili. 221°), favors the reading 
Domini or Christa: ‘‘— Servate, ministri, | Ecclesiam Christi 
[aZ. Christus] pretium quam sanguine nobis | Fecit in orbe 
suo ; famuli retinere laborent | Quae Dominus de morte dedit.” 
I do not know for what reason Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, 
and others cite this work under the name of Alcimus. 

The collection of Scripture passages called the Speculum, 
ascribed on very slight evidence, and against strong pre- 
sumptions, to Augustine, but at any rate a sort of authority 
for the Old Latin version, quotes the passage thus: ‘“ Atten- 


304 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


dite . . . universo gregi, in quo sanctus Spiritus conlocavit 
vos esse episcopos, ad pascendam ecclesiam Jesu Christi.” 
(Spec. c. 3; Mai, Nov. Patr. Bibl. τ. ii. p. 10.) The Speculum 
often quotes very loosely; but it will be admitted, I think, 
that in a loose quotation Fesu Christe would be more natu- 
rally substituted for Dosznz than for Dez.* 

The argument from silence must be used with caution ; 
but considering the nature of the writings of Tertullian, 
Cyprian (see especially his Testzm. 11. 6), and Novatian (De 
Regula Fidei sive de Trinitate), it seems almost incredible 
that they should not have cited this passage if they had the 
reading Dez, and I think we may reasonably regard them as 
decidedly confirming Domznz as the reading of the Old Latin 
version. 

We see thus, if I mistake not, that -a// the authorities for 
the reading of the Old Latin version whose testimony is of 
any weight favor the reading “Lord.” The only apparent 
exception is Primasius, who is too late to be of any impor- 
tance, flourishing in the middle of the sixth century, and 
who, though preserving some readings of the Old Latin, is 
so poor an authority that Dr. Tregelles remarks in his Look 
of Revelation in Greek, etc. (London, 1844), p. xxvii., note f, 
“1 have purposely omitted the readings of the ancient Latin 
version cited by Sabatier out of Primasius; many of the 
readings so cited are undoubtedly really ancient, but many of 
them have been zzdubitably modernized, — perhaps by tran- 
scribers and editors.” + 


* Cardinal Mai assigns the MS. of the Sfecudus (designated by Tischendorf as “‘m”’) to the 
sixth or seventh century. Being of interest as perhaps the oldest copy that contains the famous 
passage 1 John v. 7 (it has also the spurious Epistle to the Laodiceans), it may be well to note 
that Reifferscheid, a much better authority as I suppose, dates it as ‘‘Saec. viii.—ix.” (Dze 
romischen Bibliotheken, in the Sztzungsberichte α΄. phil.-hist. Cl. d. kats. Akad. d. Wiss. zu 
Wien, Bd. i. 1865, p- 753.) Hartel agrees with him (Pref. to his edition of Cyprian, p. xxv.; see 
also p. 34). [On this note compare the “‘ Postscript,’’ p. 330 f.] 


+A more careful investigation shows that Primasius is an important authority for the Old 
Latin in the Apocalypse, but that in other books of the N. T. he follows the Vulgate. — We may 
here again note some irrelevant references: The Acts of the Council of Carthage (a.D. 258 or 256), 
Sent. 79 (al. 80), merely use the exfresszon “ ecclesiam Domini gubernantes,” or in the Greck, 
τὴν ἐκκλ. θεοῦ κυβερνῶντες. (Conczléa, ed. Coleti, i. 8156, 83646,) Augustine, Cont. Parmen. 
i. 12 (al. 7, al. 6), cited by Wetstein and many others, simply has “116 Dominus noster qui emit 
totum mundum pretio sanguinis sui.” (Aug. Opp. Ix. i. 71}, ed. Par. alt. 1837.) 


ON THE READING “CHURCH OF GOD” 305 


We now proceed to 


II. THE AUTHORITIES FOR THE READING θεοῦ. 


23 25 37. 46 65 
ee Byigy Sie tee x a. way XIE KI’ ἘΠῚ’ 


66* (Qs 84 89 TS4 roche Weck 12) 
XII a X cir. fine 1093 ἘΝ XV 1022 ἢ 


which,” as Scrivener remarks, “one can lay but little stress,” 


and ex stlentio, “on 


7 τὸ 16 39 56 64 cr εἰ 
aes <2 XIL KI RV’ ΣΙΝ 
cursives, with eight in which the reading is merely inferred 
from the silence of collators. As to date, passing over the 
silent witnesses, we have two of the fourth century (middle), 
one of the tenth, four of the eleventh, one of the eleventh or 
twelfth, three of the twelfth, two of the thirteenth, and three 
of the fifteenth. Of this whole number, Tischendorf marks 
three only with an asterisk as noticeable for their frequent 
agreement with the oldest MSS.: No. 25, of which Griesbach 
says, ‘“melioribus, nec tamen optimis, accensendus est” ; 
No. 68, of which he says, “interdum quidem cum optimis 
libris consentit”’; and Lect. 12, of which Scrivener remarks, 
“it contains many valuable readings (akin to those of Codd. 
A, D, E) but numerous errors.” We ought also, I think, to 
add c**, though its reading is only inferred ex szlentzo, as it 
appears to be well collated. Of this Scrivener says, “it is 
one of our best authorities, being full of weighty and probable 
variations from the common herd.’ With these exceptions, 
the cursives that support θεοῦ are of a very inferior character 
(see the special examination in Griesbach’s note); and, as a 
whole, they are not to be compared in value with those that 
read κυρίου. This will be illustrated in the proper place. 
ANCIENT VeERsIoNnsS. — The Peshito Syriac (4th century, 
in its present form?) in Lee’s edition, and in eight MSS., 
including four very ancient, in another as a late correction, 
and another in the margin (see Supplementary Note B) ; the 
Vulgate (czy. A.D. 385); and the Harclean or Philoxenian 
Syriac in the 251. (a.D. 508, rev. 616). The Aethiopic of the 
Polyglot has a word which may represent κυρίου or θεοῦ, but I 


* - in all, two uncials and fourteen 


*[These last two MSS. are now numbered by Dr. Scrivener 13, and 186 respectively; see his 
Introduction, etc., 3d ed., p. 260.] 


306 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


think favors ¢eov;* on the other hand, Platt’s edition, with 
most of the MSS., supports the reading χριστοῦ, (See Supple- 
mentary Note B, p. 329 below.) 

Fatuers. — Athanasius, £7. 1. ad Serap. c. 6, as edited, 
reads θεοῦ: but the MSS. vary. See above, under I. p. 2098. 

Epiphanius (fl. a.p. 368), Haer. Ixxiv. c. 6, transferred from 
the Azxcoratus, c. 69: Προσέχετε (+ δὲ Arc.) . . . ἐν ᾧ 86. ὑμᾶς (ip. ἔθ. 
Anc.) ... toys. ὑμᾶς (Anc. om. tp.) ... τ. ἐκκλ. τ᾿ θεοῦ. Not quoted 
in proof of the deity of Christ, but of the Holy Spirit.f 

Basil the Great (fl. a:p. 370), (oral. Ixxx.c. 16 (Opps: 
316 (442), ed. Bened.) : Προσέχετε οὖν... ποιμ. τ. ἐκκλ. Tov θεοῦ. Not 
quoted for any dogmatic purpose. [Compare p. 310 π.7] 

Cyril of Alexandria (fl. a.p. 412, d. 444), Quod ἢ. Maria 
sit deipara, Ὁ. 22 (Opp. ix. 281°, ed. Migne; in-his Patrol. 
Ixxvl.) : Προσέχετε yap... θεοῦ... διὰ τ. ai. τ. ἰδίου! Here the word 
θεοῦ is repeated and commented on. This is the earliest and 
the only example which I find in the Greek Fathers of the 
quotation of this passage in reference to the deity of Christ. 

Pseud-Athanasius (uncert.), Zestzm. ex S. Script. c. 3 (Opp. 
ii. 4°, ed. Montf.; Migne, xxvil.): προσέχετε... ποιμενίῳ [sec]... 
ἐν ᾧ ὑμ. eeTo . . . ποιμ. τ. ἐκκλ. τ. θεοῦ. Quoted in proof of the deity 
of the Spirit. 

Antiochus the Monk (fl. a.p. 614), Yom. 1xi.: Προσέχετε... 
(ἐπισκόπους OM.) . . . Toys. τ. ἐκκλ. τ. θεοῦ. (Migne, Ixxxix. 1617°.) 
Again, Hom. ΟΧΧΙΪ. : προσέχετε... θεοῦ... διὰ τ. ἰδ. αἵματος. (Migne, 
zbid. 1812.) In both places, quoted for no dogmatic 
purpose. 

Pseudo-Chrysostom (uncert.), De S. Joan. Apost. Serm. 
(Chrys. Opp. viii. pars ii. 135 (785), ed. Monttf.) : ὡς ἔφη ὁ ἅγιος 
Παῦλος: Ποιμάνατε τ. ἐκκλ. τοῦ θεοῦ, Montfaucon remarks, “ΠΕ 


* The word egzzabher is apparently used for κύριος only when the translator regarded κύριος 
as equivalent to Jehovah. To take the examples in the present chapter: in ver. 19 it represents 
κύριος, iN vv. 21, 24, 25, 27, 32, Hedc; but it does not stand for κύριος in the phrase ὁ κύριος 
Ἰησοῦς, vv. 21, 24,35. See Dillmann’s Lex. Ling. Aeth., col. 1192. [Compare p. 330. note*.] 

+ I venture to suggest here a small, but not unimportant, emendation of the text of Epiphanius. 
Even in the recent editions of Dindorf and Oehler we read, ἢ, “αὐτὴ ἡ διακονία τοῦ πνεύματος 


καὶ τοῦ λόγου. προσέχετε," κιτ.., aS above, as if the quotation began with αὐτή. Read, 
ἡ αὐτὴ ἡ διακ. K.7.2,,—‘‘ The ministry of the Spirit and of The Word [z.e. the ministry to which 
they appoint] is ¢ie same,” — which is illustrated by the two quotations that follow, viz. Acts xx. 


28 and 1 Tim. 1. 12. 


ON THE READING ‘‘ CHURCH OF GOD ” 307 


hanc orationem praetermisit Savilius, utpote indignum quae 
legatur; nam est otiosi cujusdam Graeculi, ut nemo non 
videt.”’ 

An Anonymous Scholiast in Cramer’s Catena (p. 338): 
τὴν ἐκκλησίαν... ἣν yap φησι περιεποιήσατο ὁ θεὸς διὰ τοῦ αἵματος Tov ἰδίου. θάρρει 
οὖν... καὶ μηδὲν ἐνδοιάσεις [-σης 9] ἀκούειν ὥσπερ Ιουδαῖοι αἷμα καὶ σῶμα θεοῦ τὸ 
σωτήριον͵ κιτ.Δ. The writer has just quoted John vi. 47-58. The 
same scholion is found in MSS. No. 15, 18, and 37, though 
the first two, as well as No. 36, from which Cramer published 
his Catena, read κυρίου in the text. 

CEcumenius (tenth century 9) : Προσέχετε οὖν... θεοῦ... διὰ τ. ἰδ. 
aivatoc, (Opp. i. 260°, in Migne, cxviii.) This is merely the 
text ; there is no allusion to θεοῦ in the commentary. 

Theophylact (eleventh century), or rather the commentary 
No. 2 published under his name by Finetti from a Vatican 
MS.* Just as in CG&cumenius, whose text and comment are 
copied verbatim. (Opp. iii. 1016", in Migne, cxxv.) 

I do not follow Bengel in citing the Orthodoxa Confessio 
Recl Orient, PF, i Ὁ 85°(Kimmel) L267¢esymd. ΠΟΙ. (7: 
p. 158), as that document belongs to about the middle of the 
seventeenth century, and also quotes 1 John v. 7 (P. 1. Q. 9). 

Tischendorf should not have cited Pope Celestine I. (A.p. 
423), Ep. xviil. ad Syn. Eph. (Migne, 1. 508°, or Conczl., ed. 
Coleti, 111. 1145”), as an authority for the Greeé here, as the 
Greek text of this Epistle is plainly a mere translation from 
the Latin which it accompanies: Προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς καὶ πάσῃ τῇ 
ἀγέλῃ, ἧς ὑμ. τ. πν. τ. ay. ἔταξεν ἐπισκόπους, διοικεῖν τ. ἐκ. τ. θεοῦ, ἣν περιεπ. 
τῷ ἰδίῳ αἵματι, This is shown also by the translation of other 
passages of Scripture in the same Epistle. . 

The earliest writer not Greek who seems to have quoted 
this verse with the reading “God” is the Egyptian monk 
Orsiesius or Oresiesis (fl. a.D. 345), De Just. Monach. c. 40 
(Migne, Patrol. Gr. xl. 886°): ‘“scientes vos reddituros ratio- 
nem pro omni grege, super quem vos Spiritus sanctus constituct 
wnspicere et pascere ecclesiam Det, quam acquisivit proprio 


* The designation of this commentary by Griesbach and Scholz as ‘‘ Theoph. 2,” and of that 
mentioned above under I. as ‘‘ Theophyl. 3,” has led to the erroneous statements by Davidson, 
Tregelles, and others, that Theophylact reads Geox twice, and κυρίου three times. 


308 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


sanguine.” But we have him only at third hand. The 
treatise was written in Coptic, then translated into Greek, 
from which version Jerome, as he tells us, dictated to a 
notarius his Latin translation, in which alone it has come 
down to us. 

The Latin Fathers who have quoted this verse with the 
reading Dez are all later than Jerome, most of them much 
later, and only attest what is already settled, the reading of 
the Vulgate. I will, then, simply name those in whom I 
have found the reading Dez down to the time of Beda in the 
eighth century, referring to the places. 

Czelestine I. has been already cited (p. 307); next come 
Cassian (czr. 430), De Incarn. vii. 4 (Migne, 1. 204°);* Julianus 
Pomerius (A.D. 498, ad. Prosper Aquitanus), De Vita contemp. 
li. 3. § 1 (M. lix. 446°), ozs; Paschasius the Deacon (a.D. 501, 
al. Faustus Rejensis), De Spur. sancti. 11; 10. (M. Ixit (21°99 
Fulgentius (a.D. 507), De Fide, c. 19, al. 60, and Cont. Fabian. 
fr. 33 (M. Ixv. 699”, 807°) ; Anon. (sixth century ?) Brev. Fidez 
cont. Arian. (M. xili. 662"); Pope John II. (a.p. 532-5), Ep. ad 
Senat. (M. Ixvi. 22°); Ferrandus (A.D. 533), Ep. iii. ad Anat. 
Ὁ 14 (M. lxvii. 902%, 903"); Primasius (a.D. 550), /z Apoc. vii. 
10 (M. Ixvili. 852°); Pope Martin I. (a.p. 649), Zp. i. (Lat. and 
Gr. M. lxxxvii. 129°, or Conczl., ed. Coleti, vii. 386", see also 
col. 95°); Beda (A.D. 701), Super Act. Ap. Expos., in loc. (Opp. 
ili. 986°, ed. Migne, in Patroé. xcii.); and Anon. (eighth or 
ninth century), De xlii. Mans. Fil. Isr. c. 13 (M. xvii. 24°). 
I refer to this last treatise, often printed with the works of 
Ambrose, merely because it is cited by Sabatier, and might 
be mistaken for a witness to the Old Latin. But Sabatier 
assigns its date to the time of Beda or Rabanus (B26. Sac. 
Bae Verss Ant. τι Ὁ. lxit): 

The allusion of Arcadius, delegate of the Church of Rome 
at the Council of Ephesus, a.p. 431 (Act. ii. — Concal., ed. 
Coleti, ili. 1147-48), does not determine the reading: “pro 
ecclesia Dei, quam Dominus noster Jesus Christus sanguine 


* Following a mistake of Griesbach in copying from Wetstein, Scholz, Tischendorf (eds. 1849, 
1859), Alford, Porter, Davidson, and Scrivener substitute Casszodorus for Cassian. 


ON THE READING ‘‘ CHURCH OF GOD” 309 


suo acquisivit, Gr. ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐκ. τοῦ θεοῦ, ἣν ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἴ. X. τῷ ἑαυτοῦ 
αἵματι περιεποιήσατο. 

Of the Latin writers named above, Cassian, Paschasius, 
Fulgentius (7s), Ferrandus, Pope John II., Primasius, and 
Beda cite the passage with reference to the deity of Christ ; the 
anonymous authors of the Bveviarium Fidez and the treatise De 
xlii. MWansionibus adduce it in proof of the deity of the Holy 
Spirit ; the others do not quote it for a doctrinal purpose. 

On the use of the expression “ the blood of God,” and many 
kindred expressions, in the writings of the Fathers, see Sup- 
plementary Note A, p. 320 ff. 


11. AUTHORITIES FOR THE READING κυρίου kai θεοῦ. 


Manuscripts. — (8, H, L, P, all of the ninth century and 
of inferior character, with more than one hundred and 
ten cursives (cent. x.—xv.), most of them of little value. 
INO So) 25%, πο ποθ τὴ aang: £42 are marke wibied 

Kil’ KV) Kon XLV XI) KE ΣῚ XII 
star by Tischendorf as distinguished from the rest by a more 
frequent accordance with the oldest copies, but none of them 
seems in the Acts remarkably distinguished in this respect. 
Most noteworthy, perhaps, are No. 31 (Gosp. 69), and No. 
137 which has a singular agreement with the eccentricities 
of D and with the margin of the Harclean Syriac. 

ANCIENT Versions. — The Slavonic, of the ninth century. 

FatHers. — Theophylact, as edited by Sifanus, — No. 1 of 
the Commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles published 
under the name of Theophylact, — has this reading in the 
text, with no remark on the words in the commentary. (Opp. 
ἢ ΠΣ, ΕΠ]. Migne; Patrol. cxxv.) 

MSS. No. 3, 95**, and the Arabic of the Polyglot read 
κυρίου θεοῦ: and No. 47 θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου, The Georgian version 
(sixth century) is cited by Scholz as reading κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ. 
But we have no trustworthy edition of it. 


IV. AUTHORITIES FOR THE READING χριστοῦ. 


MANuscrRIPts. — None. 
ANCIENT VeERsIoNS. — The Peshito Syriac in all editions 
but Lee’s, and in many MSS. (one of the sixth century, others 


310 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


of the seventh, eighth, and ninth), both Jacobite and Nes- 
torian (see Supplementary Note B); the Aethiopic in Platt’s 
edition, and in most of the MSS. ; and the Erpenian Arabic, 
made from the Syriac. 

Fatuers. — Athanasius, Ep. i. ad Serap. c. 6, in three 
MSS. ; see above, under I. p. 298; Theodoret (A.D. 423), Lvz. 
Ep. ad Philip. i. 1, 2 (Opp. ili. 560", ed. Migne; Patrol. 
]xxxil.) : Προσέχετε... ὑμ. ἔθετο... ποιμ. τ. ἐκ. τ. χριστοῦ 5 and Pseud- 
Athanasius, Dzal. i. cont. Maced. c. 13 (Opp. 11. 550°, ed. 
Bened.; Migne, xxviii. 1312"), quoting precisely like Theo- 
doret, above.* Pseudo-Fulgentius (sixth century), Pro Fide 
Cath. c. 9 (Migne, lxv. 716°) : Attendite gregem Christi, im quo 
vos Spiritus sanctus constituit episcopos. For the Speculum, 
which has Jesu Christi, see above, under I. p. 303 { 


Let us now attempt to weigh the evidence. The question 
lies, of course, only between the readings κυρίου and θεοῦ. 

The MS. authority for the rival readings may seem, at 
first view, nearly balanced; but I must regard it as decidedly 
preponderating in favor of κυρίου. καὶ and B are excellent MSS., 
but we must not overestimate their value. One of the two 
is often wrong, for they often differ ; and the cases in which 
they are both wrong, though much rarer, are sufficiently 
numerous to teach us that their combined testimony is far 
from decisive. One clear example, unless we suppose these 
two MSS. right in opposition to αὐ the other MSS. and all 
the ancient versions, and to internal evidence, is to be found 
in Acts xvi. 32, where, for the less familiar expression τὸν λόγον 


* Garnier attributes this Dialogue to Theodoret, and publishes it as Dza/. iv. de 5227. sancto 
among seven Dialog? de Trinttate which he ascribes to that author; others, as Petavius, Combe- 
fis, and Du Pin, more correctly, as Schulze thinks, assign it to Maximus the Confessor (A.D. 645). 
Tischendorf cites it both under “ Dialmaced ” and “* Thdrt*,102,” as if these were two independent 
authorities. 


} Other authorities cited for ypzorov are not quotations, and afford no proof that Acts xx. 28 
was in the mind of the writer; as Origen, De Orat. c. 28, χριστοῦ ὠνησαμένου ἡμᾶς TO ἰδίῳ 
αἵματι; Exhort. ad Mart. c. 12,6 ὠνησάμενος ἡμᾶς τῷ ἑαυτοῦ τιμίῳ αἵματι, and C. 50, 
ὥσπερ τιμίῳ αἵματι τοῦ ᾿Τησοῦ ἠγοράσθημεν (Opp. 1. 2sef, 282d, and 309°, ed. De la Rue). 
The drevtarium of Basil referred to by Wetstein and others, which Davidson says “‘ can only 
mean Basil’s Regudae brevius tractatae,” where he has “ searched for it in vain,” is simply the 
summary or heading of his Morad. Ixxx. c. 16, quoted under II. above, p. 306, and amounts to 
nothing. It has merely the expression ὡς ποιμένες προβάτων χριστοῦ. 


ON THE READING “ CHURCH OF GOD” 311 


τοῦ κυρίου, x and B have substituted the more familiar τὸν λόγον 
τοῦ θεοῦ, aS I believe they have done here.* In the Acts and 
Catholic Epistles, so far as I can judge without a thorough 
examination, A is right nearly, if not quite, as often as x. 
The MS. authority for κυρίου is made exceedingly strong by 
the fact that its uncials represent both the Alexandrian and 
the Western forms of the text, and that it embraces zearly 
all of the best cursives. In cases where our chief uncials 
differ, the testimony of those MSS. which are remarkable 
for their frequent or general agreement with them is obvi- 
ously of special importance. To show how great is the 
superiority of the cursives which support κυρίου over those 
which have θεοῦ, we need not go far, though numerous exam- 
ples of a striking character will be found in the Acts. (a) 
The omission of οὖν in ver. 28 is supported by 8, A, B, D, 13, 
15, 30, 81, 180, o™; of these six cursives, all but one read 
κυρίου, and none reads θεοῦ, (4) In the last clause of the verse 
the reading διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου is found in 8, A, B, C, Ὁ, E, 
13, 15, 31, 33, 34, 36, 40, 69, 73, 81, 105, 130, 142, 156, 
fos, 150, a, δ᾽ m, of. Scrivener; and Lect: 12.. “Of the fifteen 
cursives 7 which support κυρίου, twelve have this reading ; 
while of the fourteen which support θεοῦ only one has it, 
Lect. 12; or, if we include those counted er szlentio, of 
the twenty-two which read θεοῦ only two have it. (c) In 
ver. 29 ἐγώ without a conjunction is the reading of »%, 
eer Δ᾽ τὺ £5, 36, S1,, 130, τ᾽ οἱ which cursives 
read κυρίου. (4) In the same verse, οἷδα without τοῦτο is the 
reading. of +, A,B, .C*,. D; 139 a5) τὺ Gs; 760; TOs, 163; 
180, a“. Of these nine cursives, seven support κυρίου, and 
only one, No. 68, θεοῦ: We see clearly, then, that in the 
present case 8 and B are caught in bad company; which 
affords a strong presumption that they are in the wrong, and 


* See particularly Tischendorf’s note on that passage, and to his five examples in which ‘“‘ λόγ. 
τ. θεοῦ non solet fluctuare,” add Acts xiii. 46, xvil. 13, xvili.1z. For other instances of the 
agreement of δὲ and B in readings manifestly or probably false, see Matt. vi. 8, vili. 9, ix. 32, xxvii. 
49; Mark iv. 21; Luke xv. 21; John x. 18, xix. 41; Acts xii. 25, xxviii. 12; Gal. ii. 12; Eph. i. 
15; i Chess. it. 7; Heb. vii. 1; Jas. 1.17; 2 Pet. 1. 13. 

+ Sixteen, including B-C. II. 7 [see p. 295 n.*]; but I do not know how this MS. reads 
in the last clause. 


312 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


that the uncials and cursives which usually agree with them 
are right. 

The numerous MSS. which read κυρίου καὶ θεοῦ seem to me 
to confirm the reading κυρίου, “ The church” (or “churches ”’) 
“of God” being a familiar expression, occurring eleven 
times in the Epistles of Paul, and “the church of the 
Lord” being unique, if «piov were original, καὶ θεοῦ or θεοῦ would 
be a natural marginal addition or interlineation, which would 
readily pass into the text. Further, when θεοῦ had been intro- 
duced into some MSS. by unconscious substitution of the 
familiar expression for the unusual one, or by the substitution 
of the marginal θεοῦ by those who were pleased with that 
reading, copyists of MSS. with κυρίου, finding that others had 
the reading θεοῦ, would think themselves safe if they took 
both into the text. But, as Tischendorf says, “ Quis τοῦ κυρίου 
additurus fuisset, si τοῦ θεοῦ invenisset ?”’ 

The authorities for χριστοῦ also, such as they are, seem to 
favor the reading κυρίου rather than θεοῦ. The abbreviation xY 
resembles KY more than eY; and in a version or quotation the 
substitution of “ Christ” for “Lord” (but not so for ‘God ”) 
might have seemed a matter of indifference, or have been 
unconsciously made.* A deliberate falsification of the text 
is the last supposition to be resorted to. That χριστοῦ has not 
played a great part as a marginal gloss for either reading 
appears from the fact that it is found in no Greek MS. 

The authority, next, of the Ancient Versions decidedly 
confirms the reading «vpiov, It is supported by the ¢hvee oldest, 
the Old Latin, the Memphitic, and the Thebaic, which carry 
us back to a far earlier date than any of the authorities for 
θεοῦ; and these are confirmed by the Armenian, with the 
margin of the Harclean Syriac, and indirectly, I think, by 


* How easily “‘ Christ” might be inadvertently substituted for ‘‘ Lord” in a version or quota- 
tion may be illustrated by modern examples. Ewald, who reads “‘ Lord,” in his paraphrase sub- 
stitutes Chrzstus, printing it in italics as a translation (Dze drez ersten Evang. τε. ad. Apostel- 
geschichte, 1872, il. 209; comp. p. 500). Reuss, who in his 7héol. Chrétzenne, 11. 341, τι. 2, 2d 
ed., p. 308, Eng. trans., adopts the reading κυρίου, actually cites Acts xx. 28 (zbzd. p. 186, note, 
or p. 169, Eng.), as containing the expression ἐκκλησία τοῦ χριστοῦ: and Adler, Nov. Test. 
Verss. Syr., 1789. Ὁ. 36, speaks of the reading “‘ pascatis ecclesiam Crzs¢z ”’ as found in “‘ non- 
nullis graecis codicibus.” 


ON THE READING “CHURCH OF GOD” 313 


those that read “ Christ,” though their testimony is more or 
less uncertain. That Jerome should adopt the reading Dez 
in the Vulgate need excite no surprise, or that the Monophy- 
site translator of the Philoxenian or Harclean Syriac should 
prefer the reading favorable to his doctrine. 

The evidence of the Fathers is pretty well balanced, but 
the earlier testimony (as that of Irenaeus), though not abso- 
lutely free from doubt, favors κυρίου rather than θεοῦ, The 
authorities for κυρίου also represent the principal divisions of 
the Christian world. (See the detailed statements above.) 
I have already cbserved that the earliest and the only Greek 
Father who quotes the passage as bearing on the deity of 
Christ is Cyril of Alexandria, in the fifth century, who adduces 
it once. In connection with this point, I may quote the im- 
portant remark of the Rev. Thomas Sheldon Green: “ Accord- 
ing to the common reading, the passage bears strongly upon 
more than one great dogmatic controversy, and, accordingly, 
had this form possessed established currency in the age of 
those disputes, its employment as a dogmatic weapon ought 
to be of no unfrequent occurrence in the writings of that 
age; whereas the contrary is evidently the case.” (Devel- 
oped Criticism, etc., p. 112.) 


We will now consider the zzternal evidence. What supposi- 
tion will best explain the various phenomena? 

Alford says: “If θεοῦ was the original, dwt one reason can 
be given why it should have been altered to κυρίου, and that 
one was sure to have operated. Τὶ would stand as a bulwark 
against Arianism, an assertion which no skill could evade, 
which must therefore be modified. Τί θεοῦ stood in the text 
originally, 2¢ was sure to be altered to Kupiov.” 

I perceive no ground for this confident assumption, and 
must reject it for the following reasons: (1) The Arians 
were as devout believers in the sacredness of Scripture as 
their adversaries, and would equally have regarded a delib- 
erate falsification of the record as a horrible impiety. There 
is no evidence that they tampered with the text in any other 


214 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


passage of the New Testament.* The absence of 1 John 
v. 7 from our MSS. of the Greek Testament and from the 
ancient versions is not now ascribed to them. (2) Such an 
attempt would have been absurd and useless. The Arians 
did not have possession of the orthodox copies; and how 
would a wilful corruption of their own have helped them in 
controversy? It was sure to be detected, and to expose them 
to shame. (3) We have no evidence that the Arians were 
troubled by the passage; it does not appear to have been 
quoted by any Greek Father in the Arian controversy. (4) The 
reading θεοῦ would have been really favorable to the Arians. 
They did not hesitate to apply the term θεός to Christ, but 
lowered its meaning. They were fond, as we learn from 
Athanasius, of “ calling τὴν θεότητα τοῦ λόγου παθητῆν᾽᾿ 5 of 
saying that “God suffered through the flesh, and rose 
avain”’; and of using the bald expression “the blood of 
God.” Referring to such expressions, Athanasius exclaims : 
φεῦ τῆς ἀτοπίας Kai τῆς βλασφημίας! ᾿Ἀρειανῶν τὰ τοιαῦτα τολμήματα. ---- Cont. 
Afollinar. ii. i1-13. (See Supplementary Note A, p. 320 ff.) 
And very naturally. ‘‘A Go? whose blood was shed,” says 
Professor Stuart, “‘must surely be a θεὸς δεύτερος, as the Arians 
would have it, and not the impassible and eternal God, which 
I believe the Logos to be.” (Amer. Bibl. Repository for 
April, 1838, p. 315.) We do not find, however, that the 
Arians and Apollinarians ever appealed to the reading θεοῦ in 
this passage. They justified such language on other grounds. 
(5) This hypothesis does not explain the existence of the 
reading Lord in authorities which reach back to a century or 
more before the Arians were heard of. 

In truth, Dean Alford’s theory of wilful alteration would 
have been much more plausible, if he had ascribed the sub- 
stitution of κυρίου for θεοῦ to the orthodox. But such an impu- 
tation would, I believe, be doing them great injustice. If 
they had found the word θεοῦ in the text, they would have 
been much more likely to reverence it as containing a mys- 
tery ; and there was less occasion to stumble, as the opinions 


* On John iii. 6, see the note of Wetstein or Tischendorf. 


ON THE READING “ΟΗΌΈΘΗ OF GOD” 255 


of the earlier Christian Fathers respecting the passibility of 
the Logos differed from those which afterwards prevailed. 
They also used the words θεός and deus rather loosely. From 
an early period there were many rhetorical writers, like Ter- 
tullian and Lactantius, who were fond of startling and para- 
doxical expressions, which would also suit the popular taste. 
(See Supplementary Note A.) Ata later date the doctrine 
of the communicatio tdiomatum bridged the difficulty. In 
the Latin Vulgate the reading Dez has been undisturbed, 
being found, apparently, in all the MSS. 

But though we reject the supposition of a wilful alteration 
of the text on the part either of the Arians or the orthodox, 
it may still be said that κυρίου may have been a marginal 
explanation of θεοῦ, which would readily and innocently be 
substituted by those who might stumble at the harshness of 
the latter. This is posszb/e, but not very probable; for the 
natural marginal addition would rather have been the unam- 
biguous χριστοῦ, which has been found in no Greek MS. “The 
churches of Christ’? occurs once in Paul’s writings; and 
“the blood of Christ,’ “Christ died,” and “ Christ suffered,” 
are familiar expressions. 

On the other hand, supposing κυρίου to be the original read- 
ing, we can easily explain all the variations without resorting 
to the hypothesis, a préori extremely improbable, of a delib- 
erate corruption of the text. We have only an example of 
what has occurred in a multitude of instances, the sawdstetu- 
tion by the copyist of a familiar expression for an unusual one ; 
a substitution often made unconsciously, but sometimes, per- 
haps, because the more common form had been noted in the 
margin. The expression “the church” (or “churches”’) “of 
God” occurs, as has already been remarked, e/even times in 
the Epistles of Paul, while “the church of the Lord” is 
found nowhere else in the New Testament; the former 
expression is also frequent, while the latter is rare, in other 
early Christian writings ; see, ¢.g., the statement respecting 
the Apostolic Constitutions under I., above, p. 297 fj. Tite 
resemblance of 1 Pet. v. 2 to the present passage, — Ποιμά- 


vate τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν ποίμνιον τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐπισκοποῦντες (om. by x, B, and 


31τ6 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


perhaps derived from ἐπισκόπους in Acts xx. 28), «.7.2., — “might 
aid,” as Dr. Tregelles remarks, “in suggesting τοῦ θεοῦ.᾽ 

This tendency of transcribers to substitute the familiar 
expression for the unusual, which would be particularly strong 
in the present case, may be illustrated by a few examples. 

Acts xv. 40, παραδοθεὶς τῇ χάριτι τοῦ κυρίου. The grace of 
God” being a very common expression, and occurring in a 
similar passage (xiv. 26), θεοῦ is here substituted for κυρίου by 
C, E, H, L; P, and all but about six of the cursives. For 
Acts xvi. 32, where 8, B, seem to be clearly wrong, see above, 
ae stot. 

James lll. Ὁ; for τὸν κύριον καὶ πατέρα, the familiar τὸν θεὸν καὶ 
πατέρα has been substituted in K, L, and, apparently, all the 
cursives but two. 

I Pet. 111. 15, for κύριον δὲ τὸν χριστὸν ἁγιάσατε, κ. τ. λ., κύριον δὲ τὸν 
θεόν appears in K, L, P, and, apparently, all the cursives but 
seven. 

Col. in. 15, for ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ γρίστον, 8°, C>, Dt, E, K, L, and 
all but about seven of the cursives read ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ θεοῦ ; Comp. 
Phil. iv. 7, and ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης in Rom. xv. 33, and passages 
cited in last paragraph of this page. 

Col. 11]. 22, for φοβούμενοι τὸν κύριον, x, DS E**, K, and all ioe 
about twelve of the cursives read φοβ. τὸν θεόν, the more com- 
mon expression. 

Eph. v. 21, for ἐν φόβῳ χριστοῦ, K reads ἐν φόβῳ κυρίου, comp. 
Acts ix. 31; 2 Cor. v. 11; and most of the cursives ἐν ¢. θεοῦ, 
comp. Rom. ii. 18; 2 Cor. vii. 1, and the use of the verb 
φοβέομαι. 

2 Thess. ili. 16, for 6 κύριος τῆς εἰρήνης, F, G, L, seven cur- 
sives, and many Latin MSS. read ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης ; comp. Rom. 
KVi033, xxl 20°; Phil. 1. Ὁ: τ τ 23 Heb, sine2on= 
For other examples, see Col. iii. 16 ; 2 Thess. iii. 3 ; Acts viii. 
22, 24. I will only notice further that in the single instance 
in which we have the phrase ai ἐκκλησίαι πᾶσαι τοῦ χριστοῦ, Rom. 
χα ΤΟ πὸ MSS. 3, 23,42, 60, 106/120, 177)" oe ee 
two of Matthaei’s Chrysostom MSS., read θεοῦ, See Wet- 
stein, Scholz, and Scrivener; Tischendorf does not note the 
variation. 


ON THE READING “ CHURCH OF GOD” 317 


Thus I think it clearly appears, that on the supposition 
, that κυρίον was the original reading, the variations may be 
easily and satisfactorily explained; and we may adopt the 
language of Dr. Tregelles, who remarks that “even if the 
evidence for ἐκκ. τοῦ κυρίου had not been so strong, it would have 
been confirmed by its peculiarity, and by the immense proba- 
bility of the familiar phrase being substituted for it.” (Account 
of the Printed Text, etc., p. 233.) 

Bengel’s explanation of the origin of the reading κυρίου is as 
follows: “Ex LXX. apud quos saepe dicitur ἐκκλησία kvpiov.” 
ites Csaepe  isssevem times in/all; wiz, Deut. xxiii. 1 2; 
3 (ozs), 8; 1 Chron. xxvii. 8; Mic. ii. 5, the phrase being 
applied to the congregation of Israel. Of this far-fetched 
explanation it is enough to say that there appears to be no 
reason why the cause of error assigned should not have 
affected the other passages where ἡ ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ (in the sin- 
gular or plural) occurs in the New Testament as well as Acts 
xx. 28. But in these eleven passages the various reading κυρίου 
is not once found, according to the critical editors, in a single 
MS. Bengel’s hypothesis, therefore, has no foundation. 

Another argument of Dean Alford and many others for the 
reading θεοῦ is this. Paul is the speaker. He has used the 
expression “church” (or “churches’’) “of God” eleven times 
in his Epistles, but never “church of the Zord.” Does not 
Pauline usage, then, strongly confirm the genuineness of θεοῦ 
here ? 

I agree with those who regard Pauline usage as very im- 
portant in its bearing on this question. In the divided state 
of the external evidence, it is entitled to be regarded as a 
decisive consideration. But it has been strangely misappre- 
hended. 

Paul has used the phrase (ἡ) ἐκ. or ai ἐκ. (τοῦ) θεοῦ eleven times, 
eight times in the singular, three in the plural. But has any 
respectable commentator in any one of these passages under- 
stood him to mean Christ by θεοῦ In four of them (1 Cor. 1. 
ΟΡ, ΘΟ 10 1 Wness. il, 14; 2 hess. 1.4)iChrist) is in’ the 
immediate context clearly distinguished from θεός ; and in none 
gi thevotners (1 Gor.-x,/32, xi, 16,22, xv, Θ᾽; Gal.i. 13.5 7; Tim. 


318 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


iii. 5, 15) has Dean Alford suggested, or would it occur to 
any reader, that θεοῦ is used as a designation of Christ. So 
far, then, as the phrase in question is concerned, the appeal 
to the usage of Paul shows that it is extremely improbable 
that he would have employed it here to describe the church 
as belonging to Christ. 

Let us look a little further. What is the usage of Paul in 
the rest of this discourse? Examine the use of the words 
κύριος and θεός in vv. 19, 21, 24, 25, 27, 32, 35; note especially 
vv. 21 and 24. Is it not clear, without argument, that the 
usage of the apostle “eve favors the supposition that he 
would employ κυρίου rather than θεοῦ to denote Christ in ver. 28? 

If he had occasion to describe the church as belonging to 
Christ, he mzght have used the name “Christ,” as he has done 
in Rom. xvi. 16; but in such a connection as this, in speaking 
of the Chief Shepherd of the flock, after reference to the 
ἐπίσκοποι, ---- overseers of the church, but servants of Christ, — 
it was particularly appropriate that κύριος should be used, the 
term by which the apostle especially delights to designate 
Christ in his exaltation; see Phil. ii. g-11. Arator in his 
paraphrase, quoted above under I. p. 303, seems to have felt 
the point of the expression: “ Famuli retinere laborent Quae 
Dominus de morte dedit.” See also on this matter Words- 
worth’s note. 

But much more is to be said; and, as two or three of the 
passages to which I shall have occasion to refer have been 
sometimes appealed to in theological controversy, I beg that 
it may be understood that I am not attempting to argue a 
doctrinal question, which would here be out of place, but 
wish simply to call attention to certain important facts in 
relation to the New Testament use of language. 

If τοῦ θεοῦ here denotes Christ, we have ὁ θεός used absolutely, 
not as θεός is predicated of the λόγος ἄσαρκος in John 1. 1, but 
assumed as a designation of Christ in his mediatorial rela- 
tion, and this when the term has just before been used in the 
same discourse in marked distinction from Christ. What is 
Pauline usage in regard to this point? 

The term θεός occurs in Paul’s writings, not including the 


ON THE READING “ CHURCH OF GOD” 319 


Epistle to the Hebrews, more than five hundred times. How 
does he employ it? We all know that his “adztual use of 
language in his Epistles is in perfect accordance with 1 Cor. 
V1Ll. 6, ἡμῖν εἰς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὑτόν͵ καὶ εἷς κύριος 
Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δ αὐτοῦ. I need not refer to 
other passages, as Eph. iv. 5, 6; Phil. 1. 9-11. Paul certainly 
had a most exalted conception of Christ, —see, e.g., Col. ii. 
Q, 1. 15-20; but I am now speaking simply of his wse of lan- 
guage; and it cannot be denied that he generally sharply dis- 
tinguishes θεός, and χριστύς : e.g., 1 Cor. ill. 23, xi. 3; 1 Tim. i. 
5. Has he ever given the name θεός to Christ? Alford him- 
self finds only ove instance in all his writings in which he 
supposes him to have done so; viz., in Rom. ix. 5. But I 
need not say that the application of θεός in Rom. ix. 5 depends 
on the punctuation and construction, on which the most emi- 
nent scholars have differed ; and when we observe that Lach- 
mann, Buttmann, Kuenen and Cobet, and Tischendorf * have 
so punctuated the passage as to exclude the reference to 
Christ, and that their construction has been adopted or 
favored by commentators so able and unprejudiced as Riick- 
ert (2d ed.), Fritzsche, Liicke,t De Wette, Meyer, Ewald, 
Clausen (author of the Hermeneutik), Van Hengel, and Jow- 
ett; by such a grammarian as Winer, and by many eminent 
recent translators, as Holtzmann (in Bunsen’s Szdelwerk), 
Noyes, Oltramare, Lipsius (in the Protestanten-bibel), Pro- 
fessor Godwin, Davidson, Volkmar, Weizsacker, and in the 
new Authorized Dutch Version (1868), we can hardly, I 
think, rely with any confidence on this supposed exception to 
the otherwise wzzform usage of the apostle.t And consider the 
extent of this usage, the exceeding frequency with which 
the words in question occur! If the wsus loguendi of a writer 


*So Dr. Hort; see the note on the passage in Westcott and Hort’s Gr. Test., vol. ii. 


} De Invocatione Fesu Christz, Part I. (1843), Ρ. 8; and MS. notes of his Lectures on Romans, 
taken by Professor E. J. Young. 


tOn Eph. v. 5 and Tit. ii. 13, on which few would now lay any stress, it may be enough to 
refer to Alford, Meyer, Huther, and Winer; and on Col. ii. 2, if we adopt the reading tov μυστη- 
ρίου tov θεοῦ, Χριστοῖ". to the notes of Bishop Ellicott and Dr. Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort 
and Wieseler (on Gal. i. 1). 


320 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


is ever to be regarded in textual criticism, I hardly see how 
there could be a stronger case than the present. 

In treating a critical question like this, we must not con- 
found the style of the fourth century, or even of the second, 
with that of the first, or allow ourselves to be unconsciously 
influenced by the phraseology with which custom has made 
us familiar. We find in some writers in the latter half of the 
second century and afterwards, — or, as some suppose, even 
earlier, — when the application of the names θεός and deus to 
Christ had become frequent, such expressions as the blood, 
the sufferings, the birth and death, the burial and resurrection 
of God ; but I need not say how foreign this language is from 
the style of the New Testament. 

It appears to me, then, in fine, that the evidence of MSS., 
ancient versions, and the early Christian writers, when fairly 
weighed, decidedly preponderates in favor of the reading 
κυρίου: and that, even if the external testimony for θεοῦ were 
far stronger than it is, we should not be justified in adopt- 
ing it, in the face of the extreme improbability that Paul 
(or Luke) should have here used an expression so foreign 
from his own style and that of the New Testament writings ; 
especially when the origin of θεοῦ and of all the other varia- 
tions can be so easily and naturally explained, on the supposi- 
tion that κυρίου is the genuine reading. 


Two matters of interest remain which require some further 
notice, and which, for convenience, have been reserved for 


SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES. 


A.—ON THE USE OF SUCH EXPRESSIONS AS “THE BLOOD OF 
GOD” IN THE WRITINGS OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 


In a few passages of early Christian writings the expression ‘‘the blood of 
God” occurs; and it is urged, not without plausibility, that “ nothing short of 
scriptural authority could have given early vogue to a term so startling.” The 
Fathers who use it are thus regarded as indirect witnesses to the genuineness of 
the reading θεοῦ in Acts xx. 28. 

If the writers who employ this expression used it in such a connection as to 
show that this particular passage was in their minds, and if they were generally 


ON THE READING ‘CHURCH OF GOD” 321 


careful not to use startling expressions analogous to this without some Scripture 
precedent, the argument would have much weight. But so far as my examination 
of their writings has extended, — which indeed has not been exhaustive, — the 
reverse is true. Though language of this sort was freely used by some, and 
strongly condemned by others, and though the passage would seem to have a 
direct bearing on the Patripassian controversy and on the Gnostic controversies of 
the second and third centuries, yet I cannot find that it was ever adduced, on the 
one hand, by way of justification of such expressions, or that, on the other, 
attempts were made to explain it away. Other passages, far less relevant, were 
appealed to; but, concerning this, adtumz stlentium. The reading θεοῦ had doubt- 
less found its way into some MSS. as early as the first part of the fourth century; 
but it had not become current; it had not attracted attention; and it is not till 
the fifth century that we find it actually quoted in reference to the deity of Christ 
and the propriety of such language as ‘‘ the blood of God.” 

The expression αἷμα θεοῦ occurs in Ignatius, Zph. c. 1, ἀναζωπυρήσαντες ἐν 
αἵματι θεοῦ τὸ συγγενικὸν ἔργον τελείως ἀπηρτίσατε, according to the Shorter 
Greek form of the Epistles, and in the Syriac version of the Three Epistles as 
published by Cureton; the Old Latin version of the Shorter form reads “in san- 
guine Christi Dei”, and the Longer Epistles, ἐν αἵματι Χριστοῦ. The Armenian 
version, made from the Syriac, omits the phrase altogether; and Petermann, in 
his edition of Ignatius (p. 6), says, “ Equidem dixerim, primitus scriptum esse 
Χριστοῦ, deinde ex nota Monophysitae cujusdam marginali in textum irrepsisse 
θεοῦ, ac deinde vocem χριστοῦ; excidisse.” Bunsen puts a comma after αἵματε, and 
connects θεοῦ either with τὸ συγγενικόν (Die drei dchten... Briefe des Ignatius, 
1847, pp. 42, 86, n. 7), or with ἔργον (Aipfpolytus, i. 95, 2d ed.). But for brevity 
I waive all question of the reading, or the construction, or the genuineness of the 
Epistles, which, so far as I can venture at present to judge (and this is the view 
of eminent scholars), cannot be regarded as earlier in any of their forms than the 
latter half of the second century. The phrase suits the style of these Epistles 
very well, and the only point important to notice is that there is nothing in the 
context to suggest in the slightest degree a reference to the passage in the Acts. 
The appeal sometimes made to Ignat., Rom. c. 7, rests on a false reference of 
αὐτοῦ, to say nothing of the fact that θεοῦ after πόμα is probably spurious. 

The next example is in Tertullian (4d Usxor. ii. 3): “Non sumus nostri, sed 
pretio empti; et quali pretio? sanguine Dei.” Here, again, there is no allusion 
in the context to Acts xx. 28; and even Burton admits ( Zestim. of the Ante- 
Nicene Fathers to the Div. of Christ, 2d ed., p. 25) that “his words bear such a 
direct reference to another text, I Cor. vi. 19, 20, that we cannot say whether he 
had the words of St. Paul to the Ephesians also in mind.” I will add that 
Roensch, who in his Das Neue Testament Tertullian’s (1871) has collected with 
great care all the ad/usions of Tertullian to passages of the New Testament as 
well as his quotations, finds no allusion in his writings to Acts xx. 28. 

The remaining example of this expression is in Clement of Alexandria ( (δες 
dives salvetur, c. 34) : “ Not knowing how great a treasure we bear in an earthen 
vessel, δυνάμει θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ αἵματι θεοῦ παιδὸς Kai δρόσῳ πνεύματος ἁγίου περι- 
τετειχισμένον." Here, again, there is in the connection no allusion to Acts xx. 28. 

These are all the examples that have been adduced, so far as I am aware, from 


322 GRITICAL ESSAYS 


the Ante-Nicene Fathers, of the expression ‘‘blood of God.”* They are found 
in highly rhetorical writers, remarkable generally for the harshness and extrava- 
gance of their language. They are connected with a large number of kindred 
expressions, in which the Fathers speak of the birth, conception, flesh, body, 
sufferings, death, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of God, for which no Script- 
ure precedent can be pleaded, but which are founded merely on inference. 
Under these circumstances, it seems to me extremely rash to single out this, one 
of the rarest, and claim that it implies the existence of the reading θεοῦ in Acts 
xx. 28, against the very strong presumption that, if it had existed there, it would 
often have been directly appealed to. 

I regret that the wholly unexpected length to which the preceding discussion 
has extended forbids any detailed illustration of what has been stated in regard 
to the language of the Christian Fathers, and of the extent to which, when the 
use of θεός and deus as appellations of Christ had become familiar, they use the 
most harsh and startling expressions without Scriptural authority, and simply as 
the result of inference. I can only refer to the collection of such expressions 
given by Wetstein in his note on Acts xx. 28 (/V. 7. 11. 596 f.), and add some 
references to passages not noticed by him. 

See Ignatius, Rom. c. 6: “ Suffer me to be an imitator τοῦ πάθους τοῦ θεοῦ jiov.” 
Here, again, there are various readings (see Lipsius, Zext der drei syr. Briefe, 
pp: 77, 78). 421. ο. τ8: ὁ γὰρ θεὸς ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς ἐκυοφορήθη ὑπὸ Μαρίας. 
—Tatian, Or. ad Graec. c. 13: “rejecting τὸν διάκονον [the Holy Spirit] τοῦ 
πεπονθότος θεοῦ." --- Melito, Lx Serm. de Passione, ap. Anastasium Sin.: ὁ θεὸς 
πέπονθεν ὑπὸ δεξιᾶς ᾿Ισραηλίτιδος, but in the Syriac: ‘God was put to death; the 
King of Israel was slain by an Israelitish right hand” (see Cureton, Spicz/. Syr. 
p- 55, cf. p. 56; or Otto, Corp. Apol. Christ. ix. pp. 416, 422, 444 ff., and 459, 
n. 119). Cureton has some doubt whether this and some other pieces in which 
similar language occurs belong to Melito; there may be a confusion between 
Melito and Meletius, “ the honey of Attica,” who flourished in the fourth century. 
See his Spicz/. Syr. pp. 96, 97. — Tertullian, as might be expected from his fiery 
intensity of feeling, and the audacities of his glowing style, has much language 
of the kind referred to. See, e.g., De Carne Christi, c. 5. After speaking of 
the ‘‘passiones Dei,” he exclaims: “ Quid enim indignius Deo . . . nasci an mori? 
carnem gestare an crucem? circumcidi an suffigi? educari an sepeliri? in praesepe 
deponi an in monimento recondi?...Nonne vere crucifixus est Deus? nonne 
vere mortuus est, ut vere crucifixus? nonne vere resuscitatus, ut vere scilicet mor- 
tuus?” He goes on to speak of the “interemptores Dei.” On the passage just 
cited, which contains the famous sentence Certum est, guia impossibile, so often 
misquoted, I would refer to the valuable notes of Mr. Norton, Genutneness of 
the Gospels, 2d ed., ili. 175 ff., or ii. 272 ff. Eng. ed: For other examples of simi- 
lar language in Tertullian, see 27d. c. 4; Adv. Marcion. ii. 16 (mortuum Deum), 
27 (Deum crucifixum); iv. 13 (quia Deus homo natus erat); v. 5 (nativitas et 


ἜΤΗ the Paul. Samos. Quaest. (Ὁ. iv.), ascribed to Dionysius of Alexandria, we have the 
expression τὸ αἷμα τὸ aylov τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Conczi., ed. Coleti, i. 8885); but 
Dr. Burton should not have cited this work as he has done, together with the so-called Epistle of 
Dionysius against Paul of Samosata (Burton, Test7mz. p. 25 f., 92 f., τότ, 397-419), without warning 
the reader of their probable spuriousness. See Lardner’s Works, ii. 685 ff., ed. 1829. 


ON THE READING ‘‘CHURCH OF GOD” 222 


caro Dei); De Patient. ςα..3. ---- Irenaeus, Cont. Haer. v. 19, § 1: “ [Maria] per 
angelicum sermonem evangelizata est, ut portaret Deum.” — Clement of Alexan- 
dria, Paed. ii. c. 3, p. 190, ed. Potter: τοὺς πόδας ἔνιπτεν αὐτῶν σαβάνῳ περιζωσά- 
μενος ὁ ἄτυφος θεὸς καὶ κύριος τῶν ὅλων. Tbid. c. 8, p. 214: ἐδίωξεν τὸν θεόν.---- 
Hippolytus, De Antichristo, c. 45 (Migné, Patrol. x. 7640): τὸν ἐν κοιλίᾳ παρθέ- 
νου συνειλημμένον θεὸν λόγον. Ex Serm.in Elcan. et Annam: ὡς ὁ ἀπόστολος 
λέγει, Τὸ δὲ πάσχα ἡμῶν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐθύθη Χριστὸς ὁ θεός (Migne, col. 864°). Ὁ 
θεός is in the same way added to 1 Cor. ν. 7 in MS. number 116, and in one MS. 
of Chrysostom; and that passage is so quoted, according to Wetstein, by the 
Lateran Council. Such cases are instructive. — Novatian, De Reg. Pid. sive de 
Trin. c. 25, opposes those who argued, “Si Christus Deus, Christus autem mor- 
tuus, ergo mortuus est Deus.’”’— Synod of Antioch (A.D. 269, ΖΦ 2752. ad Dionys. 
et Max. (in Routh, Rel. Sacr. ili. 312, 2d ed.) : θεὸς ἦν ἐν γαστρὶ συνουσιωμένος τῷ 
ἀνθρωπίνῳ; and see what precedes. — Sibylline Oracles, vi. 26, ὦ ξύλον ὦ μακαρι- 
στόν, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ θεὸς ἐξετανύσθῃ: vil. 66, τλήμων, οὐκ ἔγνως τὸν σὸν θεόν͵ ὕς ποτ᾽ ἔλουσεν 
Ιορδάνου ἐν προχοῆσι [Friedlieb ὑδάτεσσι]; viii. 288, καὶ δώσουσι θεῷ ῥαπίσματα 
χερσὶν ἀνάγνοις, quoted by Lactantius, iv. 18; viii. 462, δέξαι ἀχράντοισι θεὸν coic, 
παρθένε͵ κόλποις. See also vii. 24. — There is a great abundance of such language 
in Lactantius; see /ys¢. iv. cc. 10, 14, 18, 22, 26, 29, 30.— Alexander of Alex- 
andria, De Anima et Corpore, c.5 (Migne, xviil. 595, cf. 603), preserved in Syriac 
and Arabic: “ Quaenam, oro, necessitas Deum coegit in terram descendere, car- 
nem assumere, panniculis in praesepi involvi, lactante sinu ali, baptismum in 
famulo suscipere, in crucem tolli, terreno sepulcro infodi, a mortuis tertia die 
resurgere?”” — Apostolical Constitutions, lib. vill. (late) c. 1, ὃ 4: ὅτε συγχωρήσει 
θεοῦ σταυρὸν ὑπέμεινεν αἰσχύνης καταφρονήσας ὁ θεὸς λόγος, καὶ ὅτι ἀπέθανε καὶ 
ἐτάφη καὶ ἀνέστη, κ.τ. λ. 

The subject has been very imperfectly presented, but the foregoing references 
and citations may be sufficient to establish the position taken. They may also 
serve to show, in reference to the argument that θεοῦ is the /ectio durior, that 
expressions which seem very harsh to us were well suited to the taste of many in 
the second and third centuries. And how ready the Christian Fathers were to 
confound their own 772fevences with the language of Scripture may appear, to take 
a single example, from Cyril of Alexandria, who says: Τίς ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον μέμηνεν͵ 
ὡς μὴ βούλεσθαι μετὰ TOV Hvayyediov θεοτόκον ἀποκαλεῖν τὴν ἁγίων παρ- 
Gévov; (Quod B. Maria sit deipara, c. 23; Opp. ix. 284", in Migne, lxxvi.). One 
who thinks the Fathers would have been very scrupulous about using such expres- 
sions as μονογενὴς θεός͵ αἷμα θεοῦ, etc., unless they had found them in Scripture, 
may look into Sophocles’s Greek Lexicon, under such words as ἀδελφόθεος͵ θεο- 
γεννήτωρ, θεοκτόνος, θεομήτωρ, θεοπάτωρ, and θεοπρομήτωρ, to say nothing of θεοτό- 
κος. The title Dez avia applied to Anna, the mother of the Virgin, became so 
popular that, as Wetstein remarks, Clement XI. had to issue an edict against it, 
as offensive to pious ears. 

One very early passage, wrongly supposed, as I think, to speak of “ the suffer- 
ings of God,” requires a little discussion, which has been reserved for the present 
place. 

In the First Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (c. 2), we read 
τὰ παθήματα αὐτοῦ ἦν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ὑμῶν, τοῦ θεοῦ being the near antece- 


324 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


dent.* But as the term θεός, with or without the article, is throughout the Epistle 
applied exclusively to the Father, and is used in marked distinction from Christ (see, 
é.2., CC. I, 7, 12, 16, 20, 42, 46, 49, 50, 58, 59), this reference of the αὐτοῦ would seem 
to make Clement a Patripassian; and such is the view of Lipsius (De Clem. Rom. 
Ep. ad Cor. priore, pp. 101, 102), comp. Hellwag, in the 7heol. Fahrb. 1848, 
p. 255 f. But this supposition, as well as the supposition that the second person 
of the Trinity is intended by the τοῦ θεοῦ preceding, is so entirely out of harmony 
with the rest of the Epistle (see above, and in reference to the blood of Christ, 
cc. 7, 12, 21, 49), that I should regard as much more probable the conjecture of 
μαθήματα for παθήματα, proposed by the first editor of the Epistle, Patrick Young 
(Junius), and adopted by Fleury (4752. Zecé. liv. ii. c. 33), WhitLy (Disg. Mod. 
p. 18), Hilgenfeld (4. 7. extra Can. i. p. 5, note), and Donaldson (Afost. 
Fathers, 1874, pp. 157, 158). The older forms of the Mu and Pi were sometimes 
hardly distinguishable; and, as Dr. Lightfoot (27 doc.) remarks, “the confusion 
of μαθητής, παθητής, in Ign. Polyc. 7, and μαθήματα, παθήματα, in Ign. Smyrn. 5, 
shows that the interchange would be easy.” AndI do not perceive much force 
in the remark that “the reading μαθήματα would destroy the propriety of the 
expressions in the parallel clauses ... ‘the words in your heards, the sufferings 
before your eves.’” The eyes of the #zz@— what Clement calls τὰ ὄμματα τῆς 
ψυχῆς (c. 19) and οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ τῆς καρδίας (c. 36) are certainly referred to; and 
the use of such language with μαθήματα is perfectly paralleled by τὴν παράδοσιν 
(τῶν ἀποστόλων) πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ἔχων, in Iren. Haer. iii. 3, § 3; comp. Const. 
Apost. ii. 36, § 1, and Mart. Polyc. c. 2. See also Anatol. Can. Pasch. c. 5: 
Χριστὸν καὶ τὰ Χριστοῦ asi κατοπτρίζεσθαι μαθήμωτα καὶ παθήματα. But 
the conjecture, however plausible, does not seem necessary; we have only to sup- 
pose a somewhat negligent use of αὐτοῦ (of which we have an example near the 
end of the same chapter, and others in cc. 32, 34, 36, 50), referring to Christ 222 
the mind of the writer, though not named. This is the view of Dr. Samuel 
Clarke (Works, iv. 569), Rossler (Bzbliothek d. Kirchen-Véter, i. 47, τι. 2), 
Martini (Gesch. des Dogma von der Gottheit Christi, p. 24, note), Dorner (Lehre 
von der Person Christi, i. 139, or p. 99, Eng. trans.), Bunsen (/ippolytus, i. 46, 
, note, 2d ed.), Ekker (De Clem. Rom. Epist. p. 92, note), and Reuss (7%éo/. 
Chr étienne, ii. 326, 25 éd.). For such a use of αὐτός, see Luke ii. 38, xvii. 16; 
Acts xv. 5; I John ii. 12, 27, 28, and other places; and comp. Wahl, Clavis WV. 7. 
5. v. αὐτός͵ 2 c. bb-dd, and Winer, Gram. § 22. 3, and ὃ 67.1.d. In the passage 
in question I adopt the punctuation of Lightfoot and Gebhardt (who put a colon 
after ἀρκούμενοι), and their interpretation of ἐφοδίοις. Observing, then, that 
Clement has just borrowed a saying introduced in Acts xx. 35 by the phrase 
“remembering the words of the Lord Jesus,” how natural that, with Christ in 
mind, he should go on to say, “and diligently giving heed to his words, ye had 
laid them up in your hearts, and his sufferings were before your eyes”! I refer, 
it will be seen, both of the αὐτοῦ to Christ. This is also, perhaps, favored by 


* But the newly discovered Constantinople MS. and the Syriac version read χριστοῦ; instead of 
θεοῦ ; and this reading is adopted by Bryennios, Hilgenfeld, and Funk (the recent Catholic edi- 
tor). Lightfoot, however, still contends that θεοῦ; is the true reading. 


+ See Silvestre, Paléogr. unzv. pl. lvi.; and the Copto-Greek form of M in Uhlemann’s Coptic 
Grammar or Schwartze’s Memphitic Gospels. See also Donaldson, as referred to above. 


ON THE READING “ CHURCH OF GOD” 325 


the use of the Alura/, τοὺς λόγους αὐτοῦ; comp. in this Epistle cc. 13, 46; also 
Acts xx. 35; 1 Tim. vi. 3, Const. Apost. viii. 45; whereas, except in Rev. xvii. 17, 
xix. 9, Where the reference is to the words of a particular prophecy, we always 
have in the New Testament, and I think in the Apostolical Fathers, ὁ λόγος, not 
οἱ λόγοι, τοῦ θεοῦ. The general resemblance in sentiment (noticed by Professor 
Lightfoot) between c. 2 of Clement and c. 13, in which “the words” of Christ 
are twice appealed to, lends confirmation to this view, on which I have dwelt the 
longer, as no notice is taken of it in the editions of Cotelier, Jacobson, Hefele, 
Dressel, Lightfoot, Gebhardt, and Harnack, or in any other within my knowledge.* 

An important passage of Athanasius remains to be considered, which I quote 
in full, as different views have been taken of its bearing. (γι. Apollinar. ii. 
14 (Opp. i. 951, ed. Bened., or Migne, xxvi. 1156): Οὐδαμοῦ dé αἷμα θεοῦ δίχα 
σαρκὸς παραδεδώκασιν αἱ γραφαὶ, ἢ θεὸν διὰ σαρκὸς παθόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα. ᾽Αρεια- 
νῶν τὰ τοιαῦτα τολμήματα, ἐπειδὴ μήτε θεὸν ἀληθινὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ὁμολογοῦσιν. 
Αἱ δὲ ἅγιαι γραφαὶ ἐν σαρκὶ θεοῦ καὶ σαρκὸς θεοῦ ἀνθρώπου γενομένου͵ αἵμα, καὶ 
πάθος͵ καὶ ἀνάστασιν κηρύττουσι σώματος θεοῦ, ἀνάστασιν ἐκ νεκρῶν γενομένην. I 
would propose a different punctuation of the last sentence, — placing a comma 
after κηρύττουσι, and removing it after γενομένου and after the last θεοῦ. We may, 
then, translate as follows: “ But the Scriptures have nowhere spoken of ‘ blood 
of God’ apart from the flesh, or of God as having suffered and risen again through 
the flesh. Such audacities belong to the Arians, since they do not confess that 
the Son of God is true God. But the holy Scriptures speak of blood and suffer- 
ing and resurrection 2 the flesh of God and of the flesh of God become man, — 
a resurrection from the dead of the Jody of God.” 

I have italicized certain words made emphatic by position. Here, for αἷμα θεοῦ 
δίχα σαρκός, the edition of Athanasius ex Oficin. Commeliniana, 1601 (i. 5038), 
reads αἷμα θεοῦ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς, which is also the reading of the Paris edition of 1627 
(i. 645°). Wetstein, who used the former edition, quotes the passage with ἡμᾶς 
for ὑμᾶς (probably a misprint, as the two words are often confounded), where- 
upon Dr. Burton charges him with inserting καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς “from his own head,” and 
leaving out the words δίχα σαρκός, “ upon which the whole meaning of the pas- 
sage turns.” (Zestimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 20 f.) This is unjust 
to Wetstein; and the charge is the more unfortunate, as Dr. Burton himself imme- 
diately #zsguotes the edition (the Benedictine) which he professedly follows, sub- 
stituting δίχα σαρκός for διὰ σαρκός in the second clause; and in citing the last 
sentence (p. 22) omits the last clause, which is important as determining its con- 
struction. He has also, if I mistake not (I would speak with deference), miscon- 
strued and mistranslated the sentence.t 


* This explanation is adopted by C. J. H. Ropesin the Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton 
Review for April, 1877, p. 331, and by Wieseler in the ¥ahré. SJ. deutsche Theol., 1877, p. 357. 
Lightfoot regards it as admissible, St. Clement of Rome, Appendix (London, 1877), p. 403. 

} He renders: ‘ But the Holy Scriptures, speaking of God in the flesh, and of the flesh of God 
when he became man, do mention ¢he bdood and sufferings and resurrection of the body of God.” 
But if αἷμα, kK. τ. A., is connected with σώματος, what does σαρκός depend on? I venture to 
think that the construction I have adopted is confirmed, and the whole passage illustrated, by c. 16 
(Migne, col. rr60a). In answer to those who ask, ‘‘ How did they crucify the Lord of glory, and 
not crucify the Word?” Athanasius says, “ they nailed the body of the Word to the cross. He 
was God who was rejected; σαρκὸς δὲ θεοῦ καὶ ψυχῆς τὸ πάθος, Kai ὁ θάνατος, καὶ ἡ 
ἀνάστασις γέγονε," 


326 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


In saying that the Scriptures nowhere αἷμα θεοῦ δίχα σαρκὸς παραδεδώκασιν, 
Athanasius means, as I understand him, that they have nowhere used this naked 
expression. As Dr. Humphry remarks, “if θεοῦ were the reading in our text 
[Acts xx. 28], there would be mention of the blood of God diya σαρκός." (Comm. 
on the Acts of the Apostles, 2a ed., p. 164.) Mr. Darby takes the same view of 
the language of Athanasius in the note on Acts xx. 28 in his new translation of 
the New Testament (2d ed., 1872). This view seems to me to be confirmed by 
the whole tenor of the treatise against Apollinaris, as well as by many particular 
passages. See, for example, lib. ii. c. 13 (Migne, col. 1153>): Πῶς οὖν yeypa- 
φατε, ὅτι θεὸς ὁ διὰ σαρκὸς παθὼν Kai ἀναστάς; εἰ yap θεὸς ὁ διὰ σαρκὸς παθὼν Kai 
ἀναστάς, παθητὸν ἐρεῖτε καὶ τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν παράκλητον. bid. c. 19 (Migne, 
col. 1165%): Μάταιοι οὖν οἱ τῇ θεότητι αὐτοῦ πάθος προσάγοντες. See also lib. i. 
CE: 5, 5, 11, 15, 20; lib. il. ce. 3, ἢ» 11, 12. *“The Semptures,” says Athanasius, 
“end μὲν Tov ὀνόματος τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τὸ πάθος ἱστῶσι, καὶ οὐχ ὑπερβαίνου- 
σιν"... περὶ δὲ τῆς θεόξητος τοῦ λόγου τὴν ἀτρεπτότητα καὶ τὴν ἀφραστό- 
τητα ὁμολογοῦσι " (zid. lib. ii. c. 18); and neither he, nor those with whom he 
argues, seem ever to have thought of the passage, Acts xx. 28, as opposing this 
view on the one hand, or favoring it on the other. 

The use of the phrase δίχα σαρκός may require further notice. Dr. Burton, in 
discussing this passage of Athanasius (22 supra, p. 22), makes an assertion 
which even his own translation does not justify. ‘Since that Father tells us,” he 
says, “that the Scriptures do speak of the blood of God, we ask, where else do they 
speak of it, except in Acts xx. 28?””— He does not observe that Athanasius rep- 
resents the Scriptures as speaking, zo¢ of the blood and suffering and resurrection 
“of God,” but “of the flesh of God,” or, according to Azs rendering, “of the dody 
of God”; expressions which Athanasius here and elsewhere employs to denote 
the flesh or body which, together with a human soul, ὁ θεὸς λόγος assumed. He 
does not mean that the Scriptures use even these expressions; but that, in speak- 
ing of the blood and passion and resurrection of Christ, they do not use the word 
θεός, which is a term diya σαρκός, one that does not suggest or imply the flesh or 
human nature, but such names as ypiordc, which, as he says, is zo¢ given δίχα 
σαρκός; that is, it implies the incarnation. Οὔτε οὖν τὸ χριστὸς ὄνομα δίχα τῆς 
σαρκὸς προσάγεται" ἐπειδὴ ἀκολουθεῖ τῷ ὀνόματι τὸ πάθος καὶ ὁ θάνατος, τοῦ μὲν ἸΤαύ- 
λου γράφοντος, k.7.A., citing Acts xxvi. 23; 1 Cor. ν. 7; 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6; 2 Tim. ii. 
8. (Cont. Afollinar. ii. 2.) Thus he refers repeatedly to 1 Pet. iv. 1, where we 
read that “ Cirzs¢t suffered for us in the flesh.” (See Or. il. cont. Arian. cc. 31, 
34; Cont. Apollinar. ii. 18, 19.) It is just because the word θεός, without modi- 
fication, does not, like χριστός, suggest “the flesh”, in other words, because it 15 
δίχα σαρκός, that Athanasius regards such expressions as αἷμα Heov and ὁ θεὸς ἔπα- 
θεν καὶ ἀνέστη as senseless and blasphemous (see above, p. 315). 


B.—ON THE READING OF THE PESHITO SYRIAC AND THE 
AETHIOPIC VERSIONS. 


Before entering upon this subject, I wish to express my hearty thanks to Dr. 
William Wright, Professor of Arabic in the University of Cambridge, for very 
important and interesting information, most kindly communicated, concerning the 
Syriac and Aethiopic MSS. in the British Museum. The statements here made 


' ON THE READING “ CHURCH OF GOD” BEL 


respecting their readings in Acts xx. 28 all rest on his authority. For a detailed 
account of the MSS., his Catalogues are of course to be consulted. 

Of the Syriac MSS. in the British Museum, the following read in Acts xx. 28 
“*the church of God”: — 

Addit. 14473 (6th century); 17121, f. 59% (6th century); 14472, f. 39> (6th 
or 7th century); 18812, f. 358 (6th or 7th century); and 14470, f. 160) in its 
later supplement (9th century). It is also found in Addit. 17120 (see below) as 
a late correction; and in 14681 (12th or 13th century) as a marginal variant, the 
text reading “of Chrés¢.” 

The reading “God” is also found, as is well known, in a Syriac Lectionary in 
the Vatican Library, No. 21, dated A.D. 1042 (see Adler’s Mout Test. Verss. Syr. 
p. 16ff.), ina MS. brought by Dr. Buchanan from Travancore, “ Codex Malaba- 
rensis,’” now in the Library of the University of Cambridge, No. i. 1, 2, which 
Dr. Lee considers 500 years old; and a MS. in the Bodleian Library, “ Dawk. 
23,” which he regards as “ much older.” * Dr. Lee admitted the reading “ God” 
into the text of his edition of the Syriac New Testament in 1816, on the authority 
of these three MSS. j 

Of the Syriac MSS. in the British Museum, the following read “the church of 
Christ” (or the Messiah) : — 

Addit. 1712 O, “written in a good regular Zstrangela of the sixth century ”’; 
altered “at a much later period into ‘of God’” (Dr. Wright); 14448 (A.D. 699-- 
700), f. 143%; 7157, f. 121%, “a very fine MS. of the year A.D. 768” (Wright; see 
also Scrivener, /z¢rod., 2d ed., p. 279, n. 2); 14474 (9th century); 14680 (12th 
or 13th century); 17124 (A.D. 1234); and 14681 (12th or 13th century) in the 
text, but with “of God” as a marginal variant. — The two MSS. numbered 7157 
and 14448 are Nestorian. 

Respecting the Syriac MSS. in other libraries, I have little information. We 
may set down, I suppose, as supporting the reading “of Christ” the MSS. on 
which the printed editions that have that reading were founded, or in which no 
variation was noted by the collator; but our knowledge of them is imperfect. 
Among these editions are those of Widmanstadt (1555), resting on one or two 
Jacobite MSS.; the edition of Tremellius (1569), who used a Heidelberg MS.; 
that of Le Fevre de la Boderie (Fabricius Boderianus) in the Antwerp Polyglot 
(vol. v. 1572), in which he used a MS., dated 1188, brought by Postel from the 
East; that of Rapheleng (1575), who used a “Cologne MS.,” but Marsh thinks 
this was probably identical with the one just mentioned; that of Gutbier (1664), 
who had a MS. borrowed from L’Empereur; and that published by the Propa- 
ganda at Rome, in 1703, from a copy made by Antonius Sionita in 1611 from 
three MSS. belonging to the College of Maronites. (See Hug’s /ntrod., Part 1, 
§ 69, p. 215, Fosdick’s trans.) Two Nestorian MSS. in the Vatican Library, No. 
16 (al. 10), assigned by Assemani to the thirteenth century, and No. 17 (al. 9), 
dated A.D. 1510, described by Adler (207 supra, p. 20 ff.), also have that reading. 
To these I can only add the MS. Ff. 2. 15 in the Library of the University of 
Cambridge, Ridley’s No. 14, who says that it is dated A.D. 1524; and, what is 


* See the letter of Dr. Lee in Hug’s /ntvoduction, trans. by Wait, i. 368-370, and his Pro/e- 
gomena tnx Brbl. Pol. Lond. min., 111. § 4, c. τ But Dr. Payne Smith, in his Cat. of 57}5. MSS., 
in the Bodleian Library, assigns ‘‘ Dawk. 23” to the fourteenth century. 


328 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


more important, “a Syriac MS. of about 1000 years old, belonging to Mr. Palmer 
of Magdalen College,” mentioned by the Rev. J. B. Morris (Select Works of S. 
Ephraem the Syrian, Oxtord, 1847, p. 395, note) .* 

We have thus an interesting question respecting the primitive reading of the 
Peshito in this passage. A majority of the o/des¢ MSS., so far as our information 
at present extends, support the reading “ the church of God”; and as χριστοῦ is 
found in no Greek MS., and in but few patristic quotations, is it not probable that 
θεοῦ was originally read by the Syriac translator? 

This is a question on which I am not qualified to express a confident opinion; 
but I will state the considerations which incline me to a differert view. 

(1) The MS. evidence for both readings extends back to the sixth century; 
but it is important to notice that αὐ the Nestorian MSS. have the reading 
“Christ,” while the Jacobite or Monophysite MSS. are divided, the majority in 
point of number, including one of the sixth century, also supporting that reading. 
In the controversies of the fifth century, when it became known that some Greek 
MSS. supported the reading θεοῦ, and after the Philoxenian Syriac, prepared at 
the instance of a leading Monophysite bishop, had adopted this reading in the 
text, it is not strange that some of the Jacobites or Monophysites should have 
corrected (as they thought) their copies of the Peshito by the Greek or by the 
Philoxenian, and that thus the reading “God” should have found its way into a 
considerable number of MSS., since it is a reading which would especially favor 
the Monophysite doctrine.t Latin influence, so far as it went, would also tend 
in the same direction. I lay no stress upon the fact that the Nestorians (as 
Sabarjesus at the end of the tenth century) charged their adversaries with cor- 
rupting this passage and Heb. ii. 9 (see Assemani, 47d. Orient. 111. 1. 543). 
Such charges amount to little on one side or the other. But we must consider 
the probabilities. Had “God” been the original reading, the Nestorians were 
not likely deliberately to change it to “ Christ,” which must have been found in 
few, if any, Greek MSS.; they would rather have substituted “Lord,” which has 
so much very ancient authority; but passing this by, if they Zad thus corrupted 
the text, how could their reading, in opposition to the text which had been handed 
down for centuries, have found its way into a majority of the MSS. of the hostile 
sect, after controversy had become bitter? ὦ 


* The passage of Ephraem which gave occasion to Mr. Morris’s note reads: ‘‘ Flee from it [Ju- 
daism], thou that art feeble; alight thing is thy death and thy blood to it; it took [upon it] the 
Blood of God, will it be scared away from thine? . . . It hung God upon the Cross, and all cre- 
ated shook to see him.” — Rhythm i. concerning the Faith, c. 46 (Opp. Syr. et Lat. 11. r89f). — 
To the MSS. mentioned above are to be added, as I am informed by Mr. McClellan, Cod. Coll. 
Nov. ap. Oxon. 334, twelfth century, and four MSS. in the Bodleian Library, — one fourteenth 
century, one not dated, one eighteenth century, one nineteenth century. So the MS., of about the 
ninth century, belonging to the Syrian Protestant College at Beirtit, and described by Dr. Isaac H. 
Hall in the Proceedings of the Amer. Ortent. Soc. for Oct., 1877, vol. x. p. cxlvii. 


+‘ Jacobitarum codices post editam versionem Philoxenianam ad textum Graecum corrigi 
coeptum est.” — Wichelhaus, De V. 7. Vers. Syr. p. 231; comp. p. 190: “‘ Haec versio [Phi- 
loxeniana] . . . nacta est haud exiguam apud illos famam et auctoritatem, ita ut plurimum trans- 
scripta sit et variis temporibus a Iacobitarum doctoribus laudata.” 


{ *‘ Fuit ni fallor haec rerum conditio, ut Nestoriani omnes legerent ‘ Christi,’ lacobitarum alii 


codices ‘ Christi’ exhiberent alii ‘ Dei,’ quam Graeci textus lectionem genuinam et veram habe- 
mus.” — Wichelhaus, zézd. p. 150. 


ON THE READING “ CHURCH OF GOD” 329 


That the Nestorians were not the authors of the corruption appears probable 
from the similar case of Heb. ii. 9, where their MSS. and some Jacobite MSS. also 
read, “ For he apart from God (χωρὶς θεοῦ for χάριτι θεοῦ) tasted death for all 
men”; while most of the Jacobite MSS. read, “ For God himself, in his grace, 
tasted death for all men.” That the reading χωρὶς θεοῦ was not invented by the 
Nestorians is shown by the fact that it was current two hundred years before 
they existed, being found in the MSS. of Origen and many other ancient Fathers 
(see Tischendorf, and Bleek zz /oc.), whereas the Jacobite reading has in Greek 
no MS. support. 

It must be confessed, however, that the authority of the Synod of Diamper is 
against them. In the Acts of that Council (A.D. 1599) the Nestorians are 
charged with maliciously corrupting both Heb. ii. 9 and Acts xx. 28. ‘“‘ Nam ipsi 
Nestoriani, a Diabolo acti, veritatem Catholicam scilicet Deum pro nobis passum 
sanguinemque fudisse fateri nolunt.” (Mansi, Comczd. Coll. Nova seu Supplemen- 
tum, etc., tom. vi. col. 24.) That very learned and judicious body also restored 
to the Syriac text the passage about the Woman taken in Adultery, the reading 
“the love of God, because he laid down his life for us,” 1 John iii. 16, the Three 
Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John v. 7, 8, and some other gems from the Clementine 
Vulgate.* 

Should it be urged that the majority of the o/dest MSS. in the British Museum 
collection support the reading “God,” though very ancient MSS. are found on 
both sides, I would call attention to the fact that most or all of these MSS. come 
from the monastery of St. Mary Dezpara in the Nitrian desert, a Jacobite estab- 
lishment, and that what is really remarkable is the fact that they do not all have 
that reading.t The /endency to alter the reading “Christ” to ‘‘ God” is illus- 
trated by the MSS. Addit. 17120 and 14681; see above, and note the changes in 
Rich’s MS. 7157, described by Tregelles ( Textual Criticism, p. 202: mle) 

(2) The genuineness of the reading “ Christ ” is favored by its existence in the 
Erpenian Arabic, made from the Peshito. 

(3) It is also favored by the fact that all or most of the earlier Fathers of 
Syria and its neighborhood, as Eustathius of Antioch, Theodore of Mopsuestia, 
Theodoret, Nestorius, Amphilochius of Iconium, the Gregories, and Eutherius of 
Tyana, appear to have been averse to such expressions as “ the blood” or ‘the 
sufferings of God”; see p. 319f. Perhaps Ephraem is an exception (see the note 
quoted above); but he was a poet, and fond of extravagant and paradoxical 
language. Moreover, Sabarjesus quotes him as saying, “Deus Verbum neque 
passus, neque mortuus est.” (Assemani, 5202. Orient. 111. i. 542.) ; 

Such being the state of the case, I incline pretty strongly to the belief that 
“Christ” was the original reading of the Peshito in Acts xx. 28. 


The Aethiopic version as printed in Walton’s Polyglot, as has already been 


*See La Croze, Hist. du Christiantsme des Indes, 1758, 1. 341 ff. 


+  Neque id mirum est, quod Jacobitarum potissimum libri in Europam translati sunt. Etenim 
qui in Nitriae deserta confugerunt ibique in monasterio Mariae Deiparae sedes fixerunt, Monophy- 
sitae erant et codices attulerunt ex Iacobitarum monasteriis; deinde plus omnino commercii fuit 
ecclesiae occidentali cum Iacobitis quam cum Nestorianis, qui interioris Asiae tractus incolebant.” 
— Wichelhaus, dz sup., p. 147. 


330 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


mentioned (see p.305 f.), uses a word regarded by Griesbach, Tischendorf, and 
others as ambiguous, but which seems to me to support the reading “ God.”* But 
the Polyglot text (from the Roman edition of 1548-49) represents but a single 
MS., parts of which in the Acts were defective, and supplied by the native editors 
from the Greek or the Vulgate. Thomas Pell Platt’s edition, printed for the 
British and Foreign Bible Society in 1830, was also made, in the Acts and Epistles, 
from a single MS. (Tregelles, Zextual Criticism, p. 318.) This edition reads 
“Christ.” In this uncertainty about the text, the following account, for which I 
am indebted to Dr. Wright, of the readings of the Aethiopic MSS. in the British 
Museum, is of special interest : — 

Orient. 526, 1. 678; 527, f. 111°; 520, f. 935; 530, f. 39°; and’ 531, f..78%, apree 
in reading “church of Christ.” Or 532, f. 1162, omits the word Christ altogether. 
Or 528, f. 188, has “church of God,” using the word egzzadher. 

“These MSS.,” Dr. Wright remarks, “are all of the seventeenth and eighteenth 
centuries; but we have none older in the British Museum.” 


I would add that Dr. Lightfoot has kindly examined for me the only one of 
the Memphitic MSS. in the British Museum containing the Acts, or at least the 
only one accessible at the time, viz. Orient. 424, and states that “the reading is 
clearly τοῦ κυρίου." 


POSTSCRIPT. 


On p. 304, note *, the MS. of the Specadum, published by Cardinal Mai, is 
spoken of as “ perhaps the oldest copy that contains the famous passage I John 
ν. 7.” I have not yet had the opportunity of examining Ziegler’s /talafragmente 
der Paulinischen Briefe nebst Bruchstiicken einer vorhieronymianischen Ueber- 
setzung αἰ, ersten Fohannesbriefes aus Pergamentblittern der ehemaligen Frei- 
singer Stiftsbibliothek (Marburg, 1876), but in the Theol. Literaturblatt for Jan. 
15, 1576, there is an interesting notice of the volume by Dr. Reusch, who states 
that the Freising MS. mentioned in the title just given contains the disputed pas- 
sage in the following form (supplying the gaps) : — 

“et spiritus e[st testimonium,] quia spiritus est veritas. Quoniam tr[es sunt 
qui testificantur] in terra: spiritus et aqua et sa[nguis, et tres sunt qui tes ]tifican- 
tur in caelo: Pater e[t Verbum et Spiritus sanctus, et hi] tres unum sunt.” ἢ 

As this Freising fragment of the Old Latin version (containing 1 John iii. 8- 
v. 21) is said to be “of the seventh century at the latest,” it is probably entitled 
to the distinction of being the oldest Latin copy in which the Three Heavenly 
Witnesses have yet appeared. The La Cava MS. of the Vulgate, which, like the 
Speculum, contains the spurious Epistle to the Laodiceans, is, indeed, referred by 


*T would add, in further illustration of the statement that the word egzzadher appears to stand 
for κύριος Only when κύριος was regarded by the translator as equivalent to Jehovah, and that it 
is the common representative of edc, the examples of its use in 1 Cor. 11. In vv. 1, 5, 7» 95» 10, 11, 
12, it stands for fedc; in ver. τό, for κύριος ; but xot for κύριος in ver. 8,— ‘‘ they would not 
have crucified the Lord of glory.” 


t The MS. is mutilated, the words in brackets being absent. It is very doubtful whether ἀξ 
should be supplied before zves. 


ON THE READING “CHURCH OF GOD” 551 


Cardinal Mai to the seventh century; but Tischendorf assigns it to the eighth, 
and Ziegler, as the result of a special investigation, would place it even later. 

In regard to the authorship of the Speculum, the opinion expressed above 
(p- 303 f.),and in the American edition of Orme’s AZemoir of the Controversy 
respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses (pp. 187, 188), is confirmed by Ziegler, 
who remarks, as quoted and indorsed by Dr. Reusch, that “the Speculum is not 
by Augustine, but by an unknown, probably African author; and that it is not 
even certain whether he took this verse with the Heavenly Witnesses from a MS. 
of the Bible, or added it himself; at any rate, the citation in the Speculum is of 
no more importance than that in Vigilius.” As the passage was quoted by Vigilius 
Thapsensis (c7. 484) and by Fulgentius (507-533), we need not be surprised to 
find it in a Latin MS. of the sixth century. 


> AGF 


ON, THE -CONSTRUCTION, OF -ROMANS x35. 
[From the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis for 1881.]* 


WE shall understand better the passage to be discussed, 
if we consider its relation to what precedes and follows and 
the circumstances under which it was written. 

In the first eight chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, 
the Apostle has set forth the need and the value of the 
gospel as “the power of God unto salvation to every one 
that believeth ; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” In 
view of the present blessings and the glorious hopes of the 
Christian believer, he closes this part of the Epistle with 
an exultant song of triumph. 

But the doctrine of Paul was in direct opposition to the 
strongest prejudices of the Jews and their most cherished 
expectations. It placed them on a level, as to the condi- 
tions of salvation, with the despised and hated Gentiles. 
The true Messiah, the king of Israel, the spiritual king 
of men, had come; but the rulers of their nation had 
crucified the Lord of glory, and the great mass of the people 
had rejected him. They had thus set themselves in direct 
opposition to God. They had become ἀνάθεμα ἀπὸ τοῦ χριστοῦ, 
outcasts from the Messiah and his kingdom. Christians, a 
large majority of them Gentiles by birth, were now the true 
Israel. No rite of circumcision, no observance of the Jew- 
ish Law, was required, as the condition of acceptance with 
God and the enjoyment of the Messianic blessings ; no sac- 
rifice but:self-sacrifice : the only condition was faz¢h, as Paul 
uses the term,—a fractica/ belief and trust in Christ, and 


*[(The article by Dr. Dwight, to which Professor Abbot makes frequent reference below, and 
which defends the opposite opinion to that maintained by Dr. Abbot, may be found in the same 
number of the above-named journal, pp. 22-55. ] 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS ΙΧ. 5 333 


thus in God revealed in his paternal character; a faith that 
carried with it the affections and will, πίστις dv ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη. 

How could these things be? How was this gospel of 
Paul to be reconciled with the promises of God to the “ holy 
nation”? how with his justice, wisdom, and goodness? Had 
God cast off his people, “Israel his servant, Jacob his 
chosen, the seed of Abraham his friend”? These are the 
great questions which the Apostle answers in the ninth, 
tenth, and eleventh chapters of this Epistle. The first five 
verses are to be regarded as a conciliatory introduction to 
his treatment of this subject, on which he had so much to 
say that was not only hard for the unbelieving Jews, but 
for Jewish Christians, to understand and accept. 

The unbelieving Jews regarded the Apostle as an apos- 
tate from the true religion and as an enemy of their race. 
Five times already he had received from them forty stripes 
save one; he had been “in perils from his own country- 
men” at Damascus, at Antioch in Pisidia, at Iconium and 
Lystra, at Thessalonica, Beroea, and Corinth,—often in 
peril of his life. ΒΥ a great part of the believing Jews, he 
was regarded with distrust and aversion. (See Acts xxi. 20, 
21.) His doctrines were indeed revolutionary. Though he 
was about to go to Jerusalem to carry a liberal contribution 
from the churches of Macedonia and Achaia to the poor 
Christians in that city, he expresses in this Epistle great 
anxiety about the reception he should meet with (anxiety 
fully justified by the result), and begs the prayers of the 
brethren at Rome in his behalf (Rom. xv. 30-32). As the 
Jews hated Paul, they naturally believed that he hated them. 

These circumstances explain the exceedingly strong as- 
severation of his affection for his countrymen and of his 
deep sorrow for their estrangement from God, with which 
this introduction begins. So far from being an enemy of 
his people, he could make any sacrifice to win them to 
Christ. They were his brethren, his kinsmen, as to the 
flesh. He gloried in sharing with them the proud name of 
Israelite. He delights to enumerate the magnificent privi- 
leges by which God had distinguished them from all other 


334 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


nations,— “the adoption, and the glory, and the giving of 
the Law, the covenants, the temple service, and the prom- 
1565. Theirs were the fathers; and, from among them, as 
the crowning distinction of all, the Messiah was born, the 
supreme gift of God’s love and mercy not to the Jews alone, 
but to all mankind. All God’s dealings with his chosen 
people were designed to prepare the way, and had prepared 
the way, for this grand consummation. How natural that, 
when, in his rapid recital of their historic glories, the Apos- 
tle reaches this highest distinction of the Jews and greatest 
blessing of God’s mercy to men, he should express his over- 
flowing gratitude to God as the Ruler over all; that he 
should “thank God for his unspeakable gift”! I believe 
that he has done so, and that the fifth verse of the passage 
we are considering should be translated, ‘“‘ whose are the 
fathers and from whom is the Messiah as to the flesh: he 
who is over all, God, be blessed forever. Amen,” or “he 
who is God over all be blessed forever. Amen.” The dox- 
ology springs from the same feeling and the same view of 
the gracious providence of God which prompted the fuller 
outburst at the end of the eleventh chapter, where, on com- 
pleting the treatment of the subject which he here intro- 
duces, the Apostle exclaims: “O the depth of the riches and 
wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his 
judgments and untraceable his ways! ... For from him, 
and through him, and to him, are all things: to him be 
(or is) the glory forever. Amen.” 

I believe that there are no objections to this construction 
of the passage which do not betray their weakness when 
critically examined ; and that the objections against most of 
the other constructions which have been proposed are fatal. 

The passage is remarkable for the different ways in which 
it has been and may be punctuated, and for the consequent 
variety of constructions which have been given it. The 
Greek is as follows : — 

. kal ἐξ Ov ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς 
αἰῶνας. ᾿Αμῆν. 

It grammatically admits of being punctuated and con- 
strued in at least seven different ways. 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 335 


1. Placing a comma after σάρκα, and also after θεός, we may 
translate the last clause, ‘‘who (ov he who) is God over all, 
blessed for ever.” * 

2. Putting the second comma after πάντων instead of θεός : 
““who (or he who) is over all, God blessed for ever.” 

3. With a comma after πάντων and also after θεός, “ who (07 
he who) is over all, God, blessed for ever.’’ So Morus, Gess 
(Christi Person und Werk, 11. i. 207 f., Basel, 1878). 

4. Placing a comma after ὁ ὦν, and also after θεός,--- “Ηε 
who Is, God over all, blessed for ever.” See Wordsworth’s 
note, which, however, is not consistent throughout; and 
observe the mistranslation at the end of his quotation from 
Athanasius (Ovat. cont. Arianos, i. ὃ 24, p. 338).* 

5. Placing a comma after σάρκα and a colon after πάντων, 
the last part of the verse may be rendered: “and from 
whom is the Messiah as to the flesh, who (ov he who) is over 
all: God be blessed for ever. Amen.” 

6. Placing a colon after σάρκα, θεός may be taken as predi- 
cate, thus: ‘‘he who is over all is God, blessed for ever” ; 
so Professor B, ΕἸ Kennedy, D.D5 Canon of, Ely ; or, this, 
“he who was over all being (/zterally, was) God, blessed for 
ever.’ So Andrews Norton. 

7. With a colon after σάρκα, ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων θεός may be taken 
as the subject, and εὐλογητός as predicate, with the ellipsis of 
εἴη Or ἐστίν, making the last part of the verse a doxology, 
thus: ‘“‘he who is over all, God, be blessed (ov is to be 
praised) for ever”; or “πὲ who is God over all be blessed 
(or is to be praised) for ever”; or “God, who is over all, be 
blessed (07 is to be praised) for ever.” 

I pass over other varieties of translation and interpreta- 
tion, depending on the question whether πάντων is to be taken 
as masculine or neuter, and on the wider or narrower applica- 
tion of the word in either case. 

In Nos. 1-4 inclusive, it will be seen that the ὁ ὧν, with 
all that follows, including the designation θεός, is referred to 


* Perhaps I ought to add here as a curiosity a construction proposed in the Record news- 
paper, in an article copied in Christian Opinion and Revisionist for March 11, 1882, p. 222. 
The writer would translate, ‘‘ Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God. 
Blessed be he for ever! Amen.” 


336 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


ὁ χριστός; in Nos. 6 and 7, ὁ ὧν introduces an independent sen- 
tence, and θεός denotes God, the Father. No. 5 refers the 
first part of the sentence in debate to ὁ χριστός, the last part 
to God. 

The question of chief interest is whether in this passage 
the Apostle has called Christ God. Among those who hold 
that he has done so, the great majority adopt one or the other 
of the constructions numbered 1 and 2; and it is to these, 
and especially to No. 2, followed both in King James’s ver- 
sion and the Revised Version (text), that I shall give special 
attention. Among those who refer the last part of the sen- 
tence to God, and not Christ, the great majority of scholars 
adopt either No. 5 or No. 7. I have already expressed my 
preference for the latter construction, and it is generally 
preferred by those who find here a doxology to God. 


I. We will first consider the objections that have been 
urged against the construction which makes the last part of 
the sentence, beginning with ὁ ὦν, introduce a doxology to 
God. I shall then state the arguments which seem to me 
to favor this construction, and at the same time to render 
the constructions numbered 1 to 4 each and all untenable. 
Other views of the passage will be briefly noticed. Some 
remarks will be added on the history of its interpretation, 
though no full account of this will be attempted. 

1. It is objected that a doxology here is wholly out of 
place; that the Apostle is overwhelmed with grief at the 
Jewish rejection of the Messiah and its consequences, and 
‘‘an elegy or funeral discourse cannot be changed abruptly 
intoahymn.” He is, indeed, deeply grieved at the unbelief 
and blindness of the great majority of his countrymen; but 
his sorrow is not hopeless. He knows all the while that “the 
word of God hath not failed,” that “God hath not cast off 
his people whom he foreknew,” that at last ‘all Israel shall 
be saved”; and nothing seems to me more natural than the 
play of mingled feelings which the passage presents,— grief 
for the present temporary alienation of his countrymen from 
Christ, joy and thanksgiving at the thought of the priceless 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 337 


blessings of which Christ was the minister to man and in 
which his countrymen should ultimately share. 

Flatt, Stuart, and others put the objection in a very 
pointed form. They represent a doxology as making Paul 
say, in effect: “The special privileges of the Jews have 
contributed greatly to enhance the guilt and punishment of 
the Jewish nation; God be thanked that he has given them 
such privileges!” But they simply read into the passage 
what is not there. There is nothing in the context to sug- 
gest that the Apostle is taking this view of the favor which 
God has shown the Jewish nation. He is not denouncing 
his countrymen for their guilt in rejecting the Messiah, and 
telling them that this guilt and its punishment are aggra- 
vated by the privileges they have abused. So tender is he 
of their feelings that he does not even name the cause of 
his grief, but leaves it to be inferred. He is assuring his 
countrymen, who regarded him as their enemy, of the 
sincerity and strength of his love for them. They are his 
brethren: the very name “Israelite” is to him a title of 
honor ;* and he recounts in detail, certainly not in the 
manner of one touching a painful subject, the glorious 
distinctions which their nation had enjoyed through the 
favor of God. Calvin, who so often in his commentaries 
admirably traces the connection of thought, here hits the 
nail on the head: “Haec dignitatis elogia ¢estzmonia sunt 
amoris. Non enim solemus adeo benigne loqui, nisi de iis 
quos amamus.” + ; 

At the risk of being tedious, I will take some notice of 
Dr. Gifford’s remarks in his recent and valuable Commen- 
tary on the Epistle to the Romans.— He says: “ Paul’s 
anguish is deepened by the memory of their privileges, most 
of all by the thought that their race gave birth to the Divine 
Saviour, whom they have rejected.” But in Paul’s enum- 


*See eh. xi τ; 2, Cor. xi. 22. 

+ The view which I have taken accords with that of Dr. Hodge. He says: ‘‘ The object of 
the Apostle in the introduction to this chapter, contained in the first five verses, is to assure the 
Jews of his love and of his respect for their peculiar privileges.’? Coszwz. on the Ep. to the 
Romans, new ed. (1864), note on ix. 4, p. 469; see also p. 463. 

+[With the paragraphs which follow compare the additional comments in Essay XVII., 
p. 415 f.] 


338 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


eration of the privileges of the Jews he has in view not 
merely their present condition, but their whole past history, 
illuminated as it had been by light from heaven. Will it be 
seriously maintained that Paul did not regard the peculiar 
privileges which the Jewish nation had enjoyed for so many 
ages as gifts of God’s goodness for which eternal gratitude 
was due? But “his anguish is deepened most of all by the 
thought that their race gave birth to the Divine Saviour, 
whom they have rejected” !* Paul’s grief for his unbelieving 
countrymen, then, had extinguished his gratitude for the 
inestimable blessings which he personally owed to Christ: 
it had extinguished his gratitude for the fact that the God 
who rules over all had sent his Son to be the Saviour of the 
world! The dark cloud which hid the light just then from 
the mass of his countrymen, but which he believed was soon 
to pass away, had blotted the sun from the heavens. The 
advent of Christ was no cause for thanksgiving: he could 
only bow his head in anguish, deepened most of all by the 
thought that the Messiah had sprung from the race to which 
he himself belonged. 

“His anguish is deepened by the memory of their privi- 
leges.” Paul does not say this; and is Dr. Gifford quite 
sure that this was the way in which these privileges pre- 
sented themselves to his mind? May we not as naturally 
suppose that the thought of God’s favor to his people in the 
past, whom he had so often recalled from their wanderings, 
afforded some ground for the hope that they had not stum- 
bled so as to fall and perish, but that their present aliena- 
tion from Christ, contributing, as it had done, in the over- 
ruling providence of God, to the wider and more rapid 
spread of the gospel among the Gentiles, was only tempo- 
rary? If we will let Paul be his own interpreter instead of 
reading unnatural thoughts between his lines, we shall take 
this view. ‘God hath zot cast off HIS PEOPLE, whom he 
foreknew,’ ‘‘whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the 
covenants, and the promises.’”’ ‘A hardening in part hath 
befallen Israel,” but only “until the fulness of the Gentiles 
be come in; and so (or then) all Israel shall be saved.” It 


*[The last four words were added by Dr. Abbot subsequently, for reasons apparent or 
p- 415.] 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 339 


is not for nothing that ‘‘ theirs are the fathers” ; that they 
had such ancestors as Abraham, “the friend of God,” and 
Isaac, and Jacob. ‘As touching the gospel, they are ene- 
mies for the sake of the Gentiles, but as touching the elec- 
tion,” as the chosen people of God, “they are beloved for 
thie fathers’ sake.” ‘lf the ‘first, fruit, is ‘holy,,so is the 
lump; and, if the root is holy, so are the branches.” ‘God 
doth not repent of his calling and his gifts.” “God hath 
shut up all [Jews and Gentiles] unto disobedience, that he 
might have mercy upon all.” For the ancient prophecy is 
now fulfilled: the Deliverer hath come out of Zion; and 
“he shall turn away ungodliness from. Jacob.” “Ὁ the 
depth of the riches,” etc. Such were the thoughts which 
the past privileges of the Jews, in connection with the ad- 
vent of Christ, as we see from the eleventh chapter of this 
Epistle, actually suggested to the mind of Paul.* 

Can we, then, reasonably say that, when, in his grand 
historic survey and enumeration of the distinctive privileges 
of the Jews, the Apostle reaches the culminating point in 
the advent of the Messiah, sprung from that race, a devout 
thanksgiving to God as the beneficent ruler over all is 
wholly out of place? Might we not rather ask, How could 
it be repressed ? 

We may then, I conceive, dismiss the psychological objec- 
tion to the doxology, on which many have laid great stress, 
as founded on a narrow and superficial view of what we may 
reasonably suppose to have been in the Apostle’s mind. 
And I am happy to see that so fair-minded and clear-sighted 
a scholar as Professor Dwight takes essentially the same 
wiew vol thetmatter: « (See Journ. Soc... Bibl Lit., etc., as 
above, p. 41.) 

2. A second objection to a doxology here is founded on 
the relation of the first five verses of the chapter to what 
follows. A doxology, it is thought, unnaturally breaks the 
connection between the sixth verse and what precedes. 


* This appreciativ: recapitulation of the distinctions of the Jewish people would also serve to 
check the tendency of the Gentile Christians to self-conceit, and would lead them to recognize the 
important part of the despised Hebrews in the drama of the world's history. ‘It would virtually 
say to them, ‘‘ Glory not over the branches; but if thou gloriest, thou bearest not the root, but 
the root thee ’’ (Rom. xi. 18). 


340 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


This argument is rarely adduced, and I should hardly have 
thought it worthy of notice, were it not that Dr. Dwight 
seems to attach some weight to it, though apparently not 
much. (See as above, p. 41 f.) 

The first five verses of the chapter, as we have seen, are 
a conciliatory introduction to the treatment of a delicate 
and many-sided subject. This treatment begins with the 
sixth verse, which is introduced by the particle δέ, “but.” 
Whether the last part of verse 5 is a doxology to God, or 
simply the climax of the privileges of the Jews, the δέ cannot 
refer to what zmmediately precedes. In either case, it refers 
to what is implied in verses 2 and 3, and meets the most 
prominent objection to the doctrine set forth by the Apostle 
in the preceding part of the Epistle. The thought is, The 
present condition of the great mass of my countrymen is 
indeed a sad one, and not the Jews as a nation, but Chris- 
tians, are the true people of God; du it is not as if the 
promises of God have failed. (Comp. iii. 3, 4.) This sim- 
ple statement of the connection of verse 6 with what pre- 
cedes seems to me all that is needed to meet the objection. 
The argument that a doxology is inconsistent with the 
Apostle’s state of mind has already been answered. 

3. A third objection, urged by many, is founded on the 
alleged abruptness of the doxology and the absence of any 
mention of God in what precedes. Some also think that a 
doxology here would need to be introduced by the particle δέ. 

I cannot regard this objection as having any force. It is 
quite in accordance with the habit of Paul thus to turn aside 
suddenly to give expression to his feelings of adoration and 
gratitude toward God.* See Rom. i. 25; vil. 25 (where the 
genuineness of sé is very doubtful) ; 2 Cor. ix. 15, where 
note the omission of δέ in the genuine text; 1 Tim. i. 17, 
where the doxology is suggested by the mention of Christ. 


* “Ad hzc annotatum est hoc in scriptis beati Pauli, quod aliquoties in medio sermonis 
cursu veluti raptus orat, aut adorat, aut gratias agit, aut glorificat Deum, praesertim ubi commem- 
oratum est aliquid de mysteriis adorandis, aut ineffabili bonitate Dei ’’— Erasmus, A/ol. adv. 
weonachos quosdam FHispanos, Opp. 1x. (Lugd. Bat. 1705), col. 1044. On this subject, and on the 
position of εὐλογητός, see the valuable note of the Rev. Joseph Agar Beet, Comm. on St. Paul's 
Ep. to the Romans, 2d ed. (London, 1881), p. 269 f., 271. 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS ΙΧ. 5 341 


The doxology xi. 36, as has already been noticed (p. 334), 15 
completely parallel in thought. Far more abrupt is the 
doxology 2 Cor. ΧΙ. 31, ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ᾽Τησοῦ oidev, ὁ ὧν 
εὐλογητὺς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ὅτι ov ψεύδομαι, Where the ascription of praise 
is interposed between oidev and ὅτε in an extraordinary manner. 

It is very strange that it should be urged as an argument 
against the doxology that God is not mentioned in the pre- 
ceding context. The name does not occur, but almost every 
word in verses 4 and καὶ suggests the thought of God. So, to 
a Jew, the very name “Israelites’’; so ‘the adoption and 
the glory and the giving of the Law and the covenants and 
the service and the promises”; and so, above all, ὁ χριστός, 
the Anointed of God, the Messiah: as to the flesh, sprung 
from the Jews; but, as to his holy spirit, the Son of God, 
the messenger of God’s love and mercy, not to the Jews 
alone, but to all the nations of the earth. 

That the mention of Christ in such a connection as this 
should bring vividly to the mind of the Apostle the thought 
of Gov and his goodness, and thus lead to a doxology, is 
simply in accordance with the conception of the relation of 
Christ to God which appears everywhere in this Epistle, and 
in all his Epistles. While Christ, δ οὗ τὰ πάντα, is the medium 
of communication of our spiritual blessings, Paul constantly 
views them in relation to God, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα, as the original 
Author and Source. The gospel is ‘the gospel of God,” 
“a power of God unto salvation”’; the righteousness which 
it reveals is “a righteousness which is of God’’; it is God 
who has set forth Christ as ἱλαστήριον, who “commendeth his 
love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ 
died for us,” who “spared not his own Son, but freely gave 
him for us all”; it is “God who raised him from the dead” ; 
“what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the 
flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful 
flesh, and on account of sin,’ has done; the glory to which 
Christians are destined, as sons and heirs of God and joint 
Betts. with Christ,-is “the ¢lory on Ged; in short, “all 
things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself through 
Jesus Christ,” and “nothing shall separate us from the love 
of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” 


342 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Though no one can doubt that Paul was full of love and 
gratitude to Christ, so that we might expect frequent ascrip- 
tions to him of praise and glory, it is a remarkable fact that 
there zs no doxology or thanksgiving to Christ in any of his 
Epistles except those to Timothy, the genuineness of which 
has been questioned by many modern scholars. These 
Epistles, at any rate, present marked peculiarities of style 
and language, and, if written by Paul, were probably written 
near the close of his life. And in them there is but one 
doxology to Christ, and that not absolutely certain, on ac- 
count of the ambiguity of the word κύριος (2 Tim. iv. 18); 
while the thanksgiving is a simple expression of thankful- 
ness (1 Tim. 1. 12), χώριν ἔχω, gratias habeco (not ago). One 
reason for this general absence of such ascriptions to Christ 
on the part of the Apostle seems to have been that habit of 
mind of which I have just spoken, and which makes it ὦ 
priort more probable that the doxology in Rom. ix. § belongs 
to God. But this is a matter which will be more appropri- 
ately treated in another place. 

As to the δέ, which Schultz insists would be necessary,* 
one needs only to look fairly at the passage to see that it 
would be wholly out of place; that a doxology to God in- 
volves no antithetic contrast between God and Christ, as 
Schultz and some others strangely imagine. Nor does δέ, as 
a particle of transition, seem natural here, much less re- 
quired. It would make the doxology too formal. 

4. It is urged that “ὁ ὧν, grammatically considered, is more 
easily and naturally construed in connection with χριστός than 
as the subject of a new and doxological clause.” (See Dr. 
Dwight’s article, as above, pp. 24, 25.) 

Much stronger language than this is often used. Dr. 
Hodge, for example, assuming that ὁ ὧν must be equivalent 
to ὃς ἐστι, says that the interpretation which refers the words 
to Christ is the only one ‘“ which can, with the least regard to 
the rules of construction, be maintained.” (Comm. in loc., 
Pp. 472.) 

Dr. Dwight, whose article is in general so admirable for 


* Jahr biicher fitr deutsche Theol., 1868, xiii. 470 f., 477. 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS ΙΧ. 5 343 


the fairness, clearness, and moderation of its statements, 
has expressed himself here in such a way that I cannot feel 
perfectly sure of his meaning. He says, speaking of the 
connection of ὁ ὧν with ὁ χριστός, “This construction of ὁ ὧν, in 
cases similar to that which is here presented, is the almost 
universal one, both in the New Testament and in other 
Greek.” If “cases similar to that which is here presented ”’ 
means cases in which ὁ ὧν (or any participle with the article) 
is preceded by a noun to which it may be easily joined, 
while it also admits of being regarded as the subject of 
an independent sentence, and it is affirmed that, in such 
grammatically ambiguous cases, it almost invariably does 
refer to the preceding subject,— the argument is weighty, if 
the assertion is true. But not even oze such case has ever, 
to my knowledge, been pointed out. Till such a case, or, 
rather, a sufficient number of such cases to serve as the 
basis of a reasonable induction, shall be produced, I am 
compelled to consider the statement as resting on no evi- 
dence whatever. Yet that this is what is meant by “ similar 
cases’ seems necessarily to follow from what is said further 
on (Ze, -p: 24) about “the peculiarity of Rom. ix. 5)" ‘Cases 
in which ὁ ὦν, grammatically considered, caz only refer to a 
preceding subject are certainly not “similar cases to that 
which is here presented,” in which, as Dr. Dwight admits, 
“there is, at the most, only a presumption in favor of this 
construction of the clause as against the other” (/.c., p. 25). 

But, if Dr. Dwight’s statement means, or is intended to 
imply, that ὁ ὧν with its adjuncts, or, in general, the partict- 
ple with the article, almost universally forms a descriptive 
or a limiting clause referring to a preceding subject, while 
its use as the independent subject of a sentence is rare, the 
assertion is fatally incorrect. The latter use is not only 
very common, but in the New Testament, at least, is more 
frequent than the former. We have (a) ὁ ὧν, or oi ὄντες, in the 
nominative, as the subject of an independent sentence, Matt. 
τος Mark xi. τὸ (text. ΤΕ}; Heukeivi. 3; (t..r., Tisch.) ; 
M2 see Onn Ml, 521. vii 40. wine tera, 46; Acts xxi’; 
Rom. viii. 5, 8. Coztra (6), referring to a preceding subject, 


344 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


and forming, as I understand it, an afposztzonal clause, John 
irs), 13 (text. rec.); (Acts v.¥7) 5 2 Gorman su;, Rev. sy: 
Bitte); a dancing clause, John x1.) 30 5 xi, 074) οι. x1. 1. 
To these may be added 2 Cor. v. 4, Eph. ii. 13, where the 
clause is in apposition with or describes ἡμεῖς OF ὑμεῖς, EX- 
pressed or understood; and perhaps John xvill. 37 (πᾶς ὁ ὧν, 
area: 

It is uncertain whether Col. iv. 11 belongs under (a) or 
(Ὁ). See Meyer zz Joc. For the examples of ὧν, I have re- 
lied on Bruder’s Concordance, p. 255, No. VI. But as 
there is nothing peculiar in the use of this particular parti- 
ciple with the article so far as the present question is con- 
cerned, I have, with the aid of Bruder, | examined the occur- 
rences of the participle in general, in the nominative, with 
the article, in the Gospel of Matthew, the Epistle to the 
Romans, and the First Epistle to the Corinthians. I find 
in Matthew eighty-six examples of its use (4) as the subject, 
or in very few cases (nine) as the predicate, of a verb ex- 
pressed or understood, and only thirty-eight of its use (0) in 
a descriptive or limiting clause, annexed to a preceding sub- 
ject; in the Epistle to the Romans, twenty-eight examples 
of the former kind against twelve of the latter; and in the 
First Epistle to the Corinthians, thirty-nine of the former 
against four of the latter, one of these being a false reading. ¢ 

In general, it is clear that the use of the participle with 
the article as the subject of an independent sentence, in- 
stead of being exceptional in the New Testament, is far 
more common than its use as an attributive. Nor is this 
strange; for ὁ ὧν properly signifies not “who is,” but ‘he 


*The examples of ὁ ὧν and other participles with πᾶς belong, perhaps, quite as properly 
under (2). Without πᾶς, the ὁ ὧν, κ. τ. A, is the subject of the sentence, and the meaning is 
the same; σᾶς only strengthens the ὁ ὧν. See Kriiger, Gr. Sprachlehre, ste Aufl. (1875), ὃ 50, 
4, Anm. 1. 


+ Concordantiae, etc., p. 586, No. 2; p. 598, No. VII. 13 comp. p. 603, No. VIII.; p. 604, 
No. IX. 


¢ In this reckoning, to prevent any cavil, I have included under (4) all the examples of πᾶς ὁ 
or πάντες ol, of which there are eight in Matthew, two in Romans, and one in τ Cor. ; also, the 
cases of the article and participle with gi) or ὑμεῖς as the subject of the verb, expressed or under- 
stuod, of which there are four in Matthew and seven in Romans. I have not counted on either 
side Rom. viii. 33, 34, and ix. 33: the first two, translated according to the text of the Revised 
Version, belong under (4), according to its margin, under (6); Rom. ix. 33, if we omit πᾶς, with 
all the critica! editors, would also belong under (a). 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS ΙΧ. 5 345 


who is.”” The force of the article is not lost.* While in 
some of its uses it may seem interchangeable with ὅς ἐστι, it 
differs in this: that it is generally employed either in appo- 
sitional or in limiting clauses, in distinction from descriptive 
or additive clauses; while ὃς with the finite verb is appro- 
priate for the latter. For examples of the former, see John 
ato; Xi. 17.5 οὐ thei latter Romy vw, 14; 2 Cor. iv. 4: To 
illustrate the difference by the passage before us: if ὁ ὧν 
here refers to ὁ χριστός, the clause would be more exactly 
translated as appositional, not “who is,” etc., but “he who 
is God over all, blessed forever,” implying that he was well 
known to the readers of the Epistle as God, or at least 
marking this predicate with special emphasis ; while ὃς ἐστιν 
would be more appropriate if it were simply the purpose of 
the Apostle to predicate deity of Christ, and would also be 
perfectly unambiguous. 

There is nothing, then, either in the proper meaning of ὁ ὧν 
or in its usage which makes it more easy and natural to refer 
it to ὁ χριστός than to take it as introducing an independent 
sentence. It is next to be observed’ that there are. circum- 
stances which make the latter construction easy, and which 
distinguish the passage from nearly all others in which ὁ ὧν, 
or a participle with the article, is used as an attributive. In 
all the other instances in the New Testament of this use of 
ὁ ὧν or οἱ ὄντες in the nominative, with the single exception of 
the parenthetic insertion in 2 Cor. xi. 31 (see above, page 
341), it zwemedzately follows the subject to which it relates. 
The same is generally true of other examples of the parti- 
ciple with the article. (The strongest cases of exception 
which I have noticed are John vil. 50 and 2 John 7.) But 
here 66» is separated from ὁ χριστός by τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, which in 
reading must be followed by a pause,—a pause which is 
lengthened by the special emphasis given to the κατὰ σάρκα by 
the τὸ; ἡ and the sentence which precedes is complete in 


*‘* Participles take the article only when some relation already known or especially note- 
worthy (ἐς gu, quippe guz) is indicated, and consequently the idea expressed by the participle 
is to be made more prominent.’’— Winer, Gram. 7te Aufl., $20, 1. b. a. c. p. 127 (p. 134, Thayer). 

tI£ ὁ χριστός were placed after κατὰ capka, the ambiguity would not, indeed, be wholly 
removed, but it would b: much more natural to refer the ὁ ὧν to Christ than it is now. Perhaps 
the fzeling of this led Cyril of Alexandria to make this transposition as he does in quoting the 


346 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


itself grammatically, and requires nothing further logically ; 
for it was only as to the flesh that Christ was from the Jews. 
On the other hand, as we have seen (p. 334), the enumeration 
of blessings which immediately precedes, crowned by the 
inestimable blessing of the advent of Christ, naturally sug- 
gests an ascription of praise and thanksgiving to God as the 
Being who rules over all; while a doxology is also suggested 
by the ᾿Αμήν at the end of the sentence.* From every point 
of view, therefore, the doxological construction seems easy 
and natural. The ellipsis of the verb ἐστί or εἴη in such cases 
is simply according to rule. The construction numbered 6 
above (see p. 335) is also perfectly easy and natural gram- 
matically (See 2 Cor.1.020, 715, ΠΡ a4): 

The naturalness of a pause after σάρκα" 15 further indicated 
by the fact that we find a point after this word in all our 
oldest MSS. that testify in the case,— namely, A, B, C, L,— 
and in at least eight cursives, though the cursives have been 
rarely examined with reference to their punctuation. 

It has been urged, that, if the writer did not intend that 
δῶν Should be referred to Christ, he would have adopted 
another construction for his sentence, which would be ex- 
posed to no such misapprehension, But this argument is 
a boomerang. Mr. Beet in his recent Commentary on the 
Epistle to the Romans (2d ed., p. 271 f.) well says, on the 
other ‘hand = — 


Had Paul thought fit to deviate from his otherwise unvarying cus- 
tom, and to speak of Christ as God, he must have done so with a seri- 
ous and set purpose of asserting the divinity of Christ. And, if so, he 
would have used words which no one could misunderstand. Ina similar 


passage against the Emperor Julian, who maintained that ‘neither Paul dared to call Christ 
God, nor Matthew nor Luke nor Mark, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ χρηστὸς ᾿Ιωάννης." (See Cyril cont. Julian. 
lib. x. Opp. vi. b. p. 328 Ὁ, ed. Aubert.) In two other instances, Cyril quotes the passage in the 
same way: Opp. v. pars ii. b. pp. 118 a, 148 e; though he usually follows the order of the 
present Greek text. 

*In fifteen out of the eighteen instances in the N. T., besides the present, in which ᾿Αμήν 
at the end of a sentence is probably genuine, it follows ἃ doxology ; namely, Rom. i. 25, xi. 36, xvi. 
27; Gal. i. 5; Eph. iii. 21; Phil. iv. 20; τ Tim. i. 17, vi. 16; 2 Tim. iv. 18; Heb. xii. 21; 1 Pet. 
iv. 11, v. 11 (2 Pet. iii. 18); Jude 25; Rev. i. 6, vil. 12. Contra, Rom. xv. 33; Gal. vi. 18 
(Rev. i. 7). 

+ The MSS. &, D, F, G, cannot be counted on one side or the other; respecting K, we have 
noinformation. Fora fuller s:atement of the facts in the case, see Note A at the end of this essay. 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 347 


case, John i. 1, we find language which excludes all doubt. And in this 
case the words ὃς ἐστίν, as in i. 25, would have given equal certainty.... 
Moreover, here Paul has in hand an altogether different subject, the 
present position of the Jews. And it seems tome much more likely 
that he would deviate from his comnon mode of expression, and write 
once “God be blessed” instead of “to God be glory,” than that, in a 
passage which does not specially refer to the nature of Christ, he would 
assert, what he nowhere else explicitly asserts, that Christ is God, and 
assert it in language which may either mean this or something quite 
different. 


Many writers, like Dr. Gifford, speak of that construction 
which refers ὁ ὧν, etc., to Christ as “the natural and simple” 
one, “which every Greek scholar would adopt without hesi- 
tation, if no doctrine were involved.” It might be said in 
reply, that the natural and simple construction of words 
considered apart from the doctrine it involves, and with 
reference to merely lexical and grammatical considerations, 
is by no means always the true one. For example, accord- 
ing to the natural construction of the words ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς 
ron διαβόλου ἐστέ (John viii. 44), their meaning is, “you are from 
the father of the devil”’; and probably no Greek scholar 
would think of putting any other meaning on them, if no 
question of doctrine were involved. Again, in Luke ii. 38, 
“she gave thanks unto God, and spake of him to all them 
that were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.” How 
unnatural, it may be said, to refer the “him” to any subject 
but “God,” there being no other possible antecedent men- 
tioned in this or in the three preceding verses. But I do 
not make or need to mike this reply. We have already 
considered the grammatical side of the question, and have 
seen, I trust, that the construction which makes ὁ ὧν, etc., 
the subject of a new sentence is perfectly simple and easy. 
I only add here that the meaning of words often depends 
on the way they are read,—on the pauses, and tones of 
voice. (If we could only have heard Paul dictate this pas- 
sage to Tertius!) And it is a matter of course that, when 
a person has long been accustomed, from whatever cause, 
to read and understand a passage in a particular way, any 
other mode of reading it will seem to him unnatural. But 


345 " CRITICAL ESSAYS 


this impression will often be delusive. And it does not 
follow that a mode of understanding the passage which was 
easy and natural in the third and fourth centuries, or even 
earlier, when it had becom? common to apply the name θεός 
to Christ, would have seemed the most easy and natural to 
the first readers of the Epistle. I waive here all considera- 
tions of doctrine, and call attention only to the use of lan- 
guage. When we observe that everywhere else in this 
Epistle the Apostle has used the word 4:6: of the Father 
in distinction from Christ, so that it is virtually a proper 
name,* that this is also true of the Epistles previously 
written —those to the Thessalonians, Galatians, Corinthians, 
how can we reasonably doubt that, if the verbal ambiguity 
here occasioned a momentary hesitation as to the meaning, 
a primitive reader of the Epistle would naturally suppose 
that the word θεό; designated the being everywhere else de- 
noted by this name in the Apostle’s writings, and would 
give the passige the construction thus suggested? But this 
is a point which will be considered more fully in another 
place. 

The objection that, if we mike the last clause a doxology 
to God, “the participle ὧν is superfluous and awkward,” will 
be noticed below under No. 6. 

5. It is further urged that τὸ «ard σάρκα requires an antith- 
esis, which is supposed to be supplied by what follows. 
Some even say that κατὰ σάρκα must mean ‘according to 
his human nature,” and therefore requires as an antithesis 
the mention of the divine nature of Christ. But the proper 
antithesis to κατὰ σάρκα ig κατὰ πνεῦμα, NOt κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, which 
there is nothing in the phrase itself to suggest: κατὰ σάρκα, as 
will at once appear on examining the cases of its use in the 
New Testament, does not refer to a distinction of zatures, 
but often denotes a physical relation, such, for example, as 
depends on birth or other outward circumstances, in contrast 
with a spiritual relation. We need only refer to the third 
verse of this very chapter, which certainly does not imply 


*Tt is so used in the first eizht chapters about eighty-seven times, and so in the verse which 
immediately follows the one under discussion. 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS ΙΧ. 5 349 


that Paul or his “kinsmen κατὰ odpxa” had a divine nature 
also. The phrase κατὰ σάρκα undoubtedly implies an antithe- 
sis: “as to the flesh,” by his natural birth and in his merely 
outward relations, the Messiah, the Son of David, was from 
the Jews, and in this they might glory; but as Son of God, 
and in his higher, spiritual relations, he belonged to all 
mankind. It was not to the Apostle’s purpose to describe 
what he was «27a πνεῦμα, as he is speaking of the peculiar dis- 
tinctions of the Jews. Indeed, the antithesis to κατὰ σάρκα is 
very often not expressed (see, for example, Rom. iv. I, 
mais Gor i2oex. 185 2 Conv τὸ; Eph. vi.'5 ; Col. in. 
22), so that Alford judiciously says: “I do not reckon 
among the objections the want of any antithesis to «ra 
σάρκα, because that might have well been left to the readers 
to supply.” We have an example strikingly parallel to the 
present in the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corin- * 
thians (c. 32), first adduced, so far as I know, by Dr. 
Whitby, in his Last Thoughts, which at least demonstrates 
that, in a case like this, the expression of an antithesis is 
not required. Speaking of the high distinctions of the 
patriarch Jacob, Clement says: ‘For from him were all the 
priests and Levites that ministered to the altar of God; 
from him was the Lord Jesus as 29 the flesh (τὸ κατὰ ctipxa) ; 
from him were kings and rulers and leaders in the line of 
Judah.” See also Iren. Haer. iv. 4. § 1: ἐξ αὑτῶν γὰρ τὸ κατὰ 
σάρκα ὁ χριστὸς ἐκαρποφορήη, καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι (mistranslated in the 
Ante-Nicene Christian Library) ; and Frag. xvii. ed. Stieren, 
p. 836: ἐκ δὲ τοῦ Λευὶ καὶ Tov ᾿Ιούδα τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὡς βασιλεὺς καὶ ἱερεὺς, 
ἐγεννήθη [ὁ Χριστός]. 

The eminent Dutch commentator, Van Hengel, maintains 
in an elaborate note on this passage, citing many examples, 
that the form of the restrictive phrase here used, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, 
with the neuter article prefixed, absolutely requires a pause 
after σάρκα, and does not admit, according to Greek usage, of 
the expression of an antithesis after it, so that the following 
part of the verse must be referred to God. (Comp. Rom. 1. 
15; xii. 18.) He represents his view as supported by the 
authority of the very distinguished Professor C. G. Cobet 


350 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


of Leyden, who as a master of the Greek language has per- 
haps no superior among European scholars.* 

It may be true that Greek usage in respect to such re- 
strictive expressions, when τό or τά is prefixed, accords with 
the statement of Van Hengel, indorsed by Cobet. In my 
limited research I have found no exception. The two pas- 
sages cited by Meyer in opposition (Xen. Cyr. 5, 4, 11; Plat. 
Min. 320 C.) seem to me wholly irrelevant: the former, 
because we have μέν with the τὸ ἐπ’ ἐμοί, which of course re- 
quires an antithetic clause with δὲ; the latter, because the 
essential element in the case, the τό or τά, does not stand 
before κατὰ τὸ dor, But I must agree with Dr. Dwight (Z ἐς. 
p. 28) that Van Hengel’s argument is not conclusive. On 
the supposition that ὁ ὧν, etc., refers to Christ, we have not 
a formal antithesis, such as would be excluded by Van 
Hengel’s rule, but simply an appositional, descriptive clause, 
setting forth the exalted dignity of him who as to the flesh 
sprang from the Jews. I cannot believe that there is any 
law of the Greek language which forbids this. 

We may say, however, and it is a remark of some impor- 
tance, that the τό before κατὰ σάρκα, laying stress on the restric- 
tion, and suggesting an antithesis which therefore did not 
need to be expressed, indicates that the writer has done with 
that point, and makes a pause natural. It makes it easy to 
take the ὁ ὧν as introducing an independent sentence, though 
it does not, as I believe, make it necessary to take it so. 

I admit, further, that, if we assume that the conception of 
Christ as God was familiar to the readers of the Epistle, 
and especially, if we suppose that they had often heard him 
called so by the early preachers of Christianity, the applica- 
tion of the 6, etc., to Christ here would be natural, and 
also very suitable to the object of the Apostle in this pas- 
sage. I am obliged to say, however, that this is assuming 
what is not favored by Paul’s use of language or by the 
record of the apostolic preaching in the Book of Acts. 


*See Van Hengel, /zterp. Ep. Pauli ad Rom., tom. ii. (1859), pp. 348-353, and pp. 804-813. 
Speaking of his citations, he says (p. 350), “‘ Allatorum unum a.terumque mecum communicavit 
Coset.us noster, se multo plura, quibus interpretatio mea confirmaretur, suppeditare posse 
dicens.’’ [See p. 432 sq.] 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 Sou 


On the other hand, there was no need of such an append- 
age to ὁ χριστό. We have only to consider the glory and 
dignity with which the name of the Messiah was invested 
in the mind of a Jew, and the still higher glory and dignity 
associated with ὁ χριστές in the mind of a Christian, and espe- 
cially in the mind of Paul. 

6. It is further objected that, in sentences which begin 
with a doxology or an ascription of blessing, εὐλογητός (or 
εὐλογημένος) always precedes the subject; and that “the laws ”’ 
or ‘rules of grammar’ (Stuart, Alford) require that it 
should do so here te justify the construction proposed. So, 
in the N. T., εὐλογητός stands first in the doxologies Luke i. 
6 2) Cor, 2. Eph τ  ΒΕῚ 14) & and ΞῸ εὐλογητός arya 
εὐλογημένος precede the subject in a multitude of places in the 
Septuagint. (See Trommius’s Concordance and Wahl’s C/Za- 
vis librorum Vet. Test. apocryphorum.) 

Great stress has been laid on this objection by many ; but 
I believe that a critical examination will show that it has no 
real weight. 

We will begin by considering a misconception of the 
meaning of ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων θεός Which has led to untenable ob- 
jections against the doxological construction, and has _ pre- 
vented the reason for the position of εὐλογητός from being 
clearly seen. It has been assumed by many that the phrase 
is simply equivalent to “the Supreme God”’ (so Wahl, s. v. 
ἐπί, omnibus superior, omnium summus),* as if the Apostle 
was contrasting God with Christ in respect to dignity, in- 
stead of simply describing God as the being who rules over 
all. This misunderstanding of the expression occasioned 
the chief difficulty felt by De Wette in adopting the con- 
struction which places a colon or a period after σάρκα. It 
seemed to him like “throwing Christ right into the shade,” 
without any special reason, when we should rather expect 


*Wahl gives a more correct view of the use of ἐπί in his Clawis Libr. Vet. Test. apocr. 
(1853), p. 218, col. 1, C. b., where εἰμὲ ἐπί with the genitive is defined, praesum alicut rei, 
moder or 5. administro aliqguant rem. Comp. Grimm’s Lexicon Gr.-Lat. in libros N. T., ed. 
2da, s. v. ἐπί, A. i. 1. ἃ. p. 160, col. 2; Rost and Palm’s Passuw. vol. 1. p. 1035, col. 1, 3; and the 
references given by Meyer and Van Hengel zz Joc. See Acts viii. 27, xii. 20; Gen. xliv. 1; 
Judith xiv. 13, εἶπαν τῷ ὄντι ἐπὶ πάντων αὐτοῦ ; τ Macc. x. 69, τὸν ὄντα ἐπὶ KolAne Συρίας, 


352 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


something said in antithesis to τὸ κατὰ σάοκα, to set forth his 
dignity; though he admits that this objection is removed, if 
we accept Fritzsche’s explanation of the passage.* On this 
false view is founded Schultz’s notion (see above, p. 342) that 
δέ would be needed here to indicate the antithesis. On it is 
also grounded the objection of Alford, Farrar, and others, 
that the ὧν is “perfectly superfluous,” as, indeed, it would 
be, if that were simply the meaning intended. To express 
the idea of “the God over all,” “the Supreme God,” In/con- 
trast with a being to whom the term “God” might indeed 
be applied, but only in a lower sense, we should need only 
ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεΐς,---αὶ phrase which is thus used numberless 
times in the writings of the Christian Fathers; see, for ex- 
amples, Wetstein’s note on Rom. ix. 5. But, as I understand 
the passage, the ὧν is by no means superfluous. It not only 
gives an impressive fulness to the expression, but converts 
what would otherwise be a mere epithet of God into a szd- 
stantive designation of him, equivalent to “the Ruler over 
All,” on which the mind rests for a moment by itself, before 
it reaches the θεός qualified by it ; or θεός may be regarded as 
added by way of apposition or more precise definition. The 
position of this substantive designation of θεός, between the 
article and its noun, gives it special prominence. Comp. I 
(Soren 7, οὔτε ὁ φυτεύων ἐστί τι, οὔτε ὁ ποτίζων, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ αὐξάνων θεός. Addit. 
ad Esth. viii. 1. 30, ὁ τὰ πάντα δυναστεύων θεός, cf. ll. 8, 35, Tisch. ; 
ὁ πάντων δεσπόζων θεός, Justin Mart. A pol. 1h 15 3 ὁ ποιητὴς τοῦδε τοῦ 
παντὸς θεός, 267d. i. 26. In expressions of this kind, the definite 
article fulfils, I conceive, a double function: it is con- 
nected with the participle or other adjunct which immedi- 
ately follows it, just as it would be if the substantive at the 
end were omitted; but, at the same time, it makes that sub- 
stantive definite, so that the article in effect belongs to the 
substantive as well as to the participle. Thus, ὁ ὃν ἐπὶ πάντων 
θεός is equivalent to ὁ θεὸς ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων in everything except the 
difference in prominence given to the different parts of the 
phrase in the two expressions. In the latter, ὁ θεός is made 
prominent by its position: in the former, prominence is 


ἜΤ) Wette, Kurze Erkliirung des Briefes an die Romer, 4te Aufl. (1847), p. 130. 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS ΙΧ. 5 BN 


given to the particular conception expressed by ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων, 
ἐν ΠΕ ΠΕ over All.” ™ 

Let us look now for a moment at the connection of 
thought in the passage before us, and we shall see that this 
distinction is important. The Apostle is speaking of the 
favored nation to which it is his pride to belong. Its grand 
religious history of some two thousand years passes rapidly 
before his mind, as ina panorama. Their ancestors were the 
patriarchs,— Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Theirs were ‘the 
adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giv- 
ing of the Law, and the temple service, and the promises.” 
But God’s choice and training of his “ peculiar people,” and 
the privileges conferred upon them, were all a providential 
preparation for the advent of the Messiah, whose birth from 
among the Jews was their highest national distinction and 
glory ; while his mission as the founder of a spiritual and 
unzversal religion was the crowning manifestation of God’s 
love and mercy to mankind. How could this survey of the 
ages of promise and preparation, and the great fulfilment in 
Christ, fail to bring vividly before the mind of the Apostle 
the thought of God as the Being who presides over all things, 
who cares for all men and controls all events? + Because 


*If this account is correct, it follows that neither of the renderings which I have suggested 
above (p. 334) as expressing my view of the meaning represents the original perfectly. Nor do I 
perceive that the English idiom admits of a perfect translation. If we render ‘‘ he who is over 
all, God, be blessed for ever,’? we make the word ‘‘ God ”’ stand in simple apposition to ‘‘ he who 
is over all,’’ which I do not suppose to be the g#awemazical construction. If, on the other hand, 
we translate, ‘“he who is God over all be blessed for ever,’’ we lose in a great measure the effect 
of the position of the ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων before θεός. 

+ Erasmus has well presented the thought of the Apostle: ‘‘ Ut enim haec omnia, quae com- 
memorat de adoptione, gloria, testamentis, legislatione, cultibus, ac promissis, deque patribus, ex 
quibus Christus juxta carnem ortus est, declaret non fortuito facta, sed admirabili Dei providentia, 
qui tot modis procuravit salutem humani generis, non simpliciter dicit Deus, sed zs gui rebus 
omnibus praeest, outnia suo divino consilio dispensans moderansque, cui dicit deberi laudem in 
omne aevum, ob insignem erga nos charitatem, cui maledicebant Judaei, dum Filium unicum 
blasphemiis impeterent.’’? Note zz Zoc., in his Opp. vi. (Lugd. Bat. 1705), col. ὅττι. 

So Westcott and Hort, in their note on this passage in vol ii. of their Greek Testament, 
remarking on the punctuation which places a colon after σάρκα as “δὴ expression of the inter- 
pretation which implies that special force was intended to be thrown on ἐπὶ πάντων by the inter- 
position of ὧν, observe: “This emphatic sense of ἐπὶ πάντων (cf. i. 16; ii. 9 f.; ili. 29 f. ; x. 
12; Xi. 32, 36) is fully justified if St. Paul’s purpose is to suggest that the tragic apostasy of the 
Jews (vv. 2, 3) is itself part of the dispensations of ‘ Him who is God over all,’ over Jew and 
Gentile alike, over past present and future alike; so that the ascription of blessing to him is a 
homage to his divine purpose and power of bringing good out of evil in the course of the ages 
(xi. 13-16; 25-36).’? Dr. Hort remarks that ‘‘ this punctuation alone seems adequate to account 
for the whole of the language employed, more especialiy when it is considered in relation to the 
context.’’ 


354 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


this conception is prominent in his mind, he places the ὁ ὧν 
ἐπὶ πάντων first in the sentence. A recognition of this fact 
removes all the difficulty about the position of εὐλογητός. 
There is no “law of grammar” bearing on the matter, ex- 
cept the law that the predicate, when it is more prominent 
in the mind of the writer, precedes the subject. In simply 
exclamatory doxologies, the εὐλογητός or eidoyyuévoc Comes first, 
because the feeling that prompts its use is predominant, and 
can be expressed in a single word. But here, where the 
thought of the overruling providence of God is prominent, 
the ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων must stand first in the sentence, to express 
that prominence; and the position of εὐλογητός after it is re- 
quired by the very same law of the Greek language which 
governs all the examples that have been alleged against the 
doxological construction of the passage. This thought of 
God as the Ruler over All reappears in the doxology at the 
end of the eleventh chapter (xi. 36), where the Apostle con- 
cludes his grand Theodicy: “For from him and through 
him and to him are ALL THINGS: to him is the glory for 
ever! Amen.” Compare also Eph. i. ΤΊ, cited by Mr. 
Beet : ‘‘foreordained according to the purpose of him who 
worketh ALL THINGS after the counsel of his will” ; and so 
in another doxology (1 Tim. i. 17) suggested by the mention 
of Christ, the ascription is, τῷ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων͵--- “to the King 
OF THE AGES.” ἢ 

I prefer, on the whole, to take πάντων as neuter ; but much 
might be said in favor of the view of Fritzsche, whose note 
on this passage is especially valuable, He, with many other 
scholars, regards it as masculine: “ Quz omnibus pracest ho- 
minibus (2.e. qui et Judaeis et gentilibus consulit Deus, der 
ueber allen Menschen waltende Gott) szt celebratus perpetuo, 
amen.’ (C. F. A. Fritzsche, Paul: ad Kom. Epist. tom, ii, 


*This seems to me the true rendering rather than ‘‘to the King ezerzal,”” though eternity is 
implied. Comp. Rev. xv. 3, Westcott and Hort; Sir. xxxvi. 22 (al. xxxili. 19); Tob. xiii. 6, 10; 
Ps. exliv. (exlv.) 13; Clem. Rom. 4:2. ad Cor. cc. 35, 33 55, 63 61,23; Const. Afost. vii. 34; 
APS ace Gig, SO) ix. xv. 18, κύριος βασιλεύων τῶν αἰώνων, as cited by Philo, De 
Plant. No#, c. 12, bis (Opp. i. 336, 337, ed. Mang.), De Mundo, c. 7 (Opp. ii. 608), and read in 
many cursive MSS.; Joseph. Az. i. 18, §7, δέσποτα παντὸς αἰῶνος. Contra, Test. xii. 
Patr., Ruder, c. 6. 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 355 


[1839] p. 272.) He refers for the πάντων to Rom. x. 12, xi. 
5.5, 111: 20. 

We may note here that, while the Apostle says ὧν οἱ πατέρες, 
he does not say ὧν, but ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστός. He could not forget 
the thought which pervades the Epistle, that the Messiah 
was for a// men alike. Nor does he forget that, while by 
natural descent, κατὰ σάρκα, Christ was “from the Jews,” he 
was κατὰ πνεῦμα, and in all that constituted him the Messiah, 
“from Gop,” who “anointed him with the Holy Spirit and 
with power,” who “made him both Lord and Christ,” who 
marked him out as his “ Son” by raising him from the dead 
(Acts xiii. 33; Rom. i. 4), and setting him at his right hana 
in the heavenly places, and giving him to be the head over: 
all things to the Church (Eph. i. 20-22),— that Church in 
which there is no distinction of “Greek and Jew,” “but 
Christ is all and in all.” 

That such words as εὐλογητός, εὐλογημένος, μακάριος, and ἐπικατάρατος 
should usually stand first in the sentence in expressions 
of benediction, macarism, and malediction, is natural in 
Greek for the same reason that it is natural in English to 
give the first place to such words as “blessed,” ‘‘happy,” 
“cursed.” It makes no difference, as a study of the exam- 
ples will show, whether the expression be offatzvz, as is usu- 
ally the case with εὐλογημένος, with the ellipsis of ei7 or ἔστω, or 
declarative, as in the case of μακάριος, and usually, I believe, 
of εὐλογητός, ἐστί being understood.* The ellipsis of the sub- 
stantive verb gives rapidity and force to the expression, indi- 
cating a certain glow of feeling. But in Greek as in Eng- 
lish, if the subject is more prominent in the mind of the 
writer, and is not overweighted with descriptive appendages, 


*I believe that evAoyntoc in doxologies is distinguished from εὐλογημένος as laudandus is 
from Jaudatus; and that the doxology in Rom. ix. 5 is therefore strictly a declarative, not an 
optative one. The most literal and exact rendering into Latin would be something like this: 
‘‘Tlle qui est super omnia Deus laudandus (est) in aeternum!’? Where the verb is expressed 
with εὐλογητός (as very often in the formula εὐλογητὸς εἶ), it is always, I believe, in the indic- 
ative. Here I must express my surprise that Canon Farrar (Te EZ xfositor, vol. ix. p. 402; vol. 
X. p. 238) should deny that Rom, i. 25 and 2 Cor. xi. 31 are ‘‘doxologies.””? What is a doxology 
but a pious ascription of glory or praise? If ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν, 
Rom. i. 25, is ‘‘ not a doxology at all’’ on account of the ἐστίν, then Matt. vi. 13 (text rec.) and 
1 Pet. 1v. 11 are, for the same reason, not doxologies. 


256 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


there is nothing to hinder a change of order, but the genius 
of the language rather requires it. 

The example commonly adduced of this variation in the 
case of εὐλογητός is Ps. Ixvii. (Heb. xviii.) 20, Κύριος ὁ θεὸς εὐλο- 
γητός, εὐλογητὸς κύριος ἡμέραν καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, Where we find εὐλογητός in both 
positions. This peculiarity is the result of a misconstruc- 
tion and perhaps also of a false reading (Meyer) of the He- 
brew. The example shows that the position of εὐλογητός after 
the subject violates no law of the Greek language ; but, on 
account of the repetition of εὐλογητός, I do not urge it as a 
parallel to Rom. ix. 5. (See Dr. Dwight as above, p. 32 f. 
and cf. Essay XVII. p. 436 below.) On the other hand, the 
passage cited by Grimm (see as above, p. 34) from the Apoc- 
ryphal Psalms of Solomon, viii. 41, 42, written probably about 
48 B.C., seems to me quite to the purpose : — 

αἰνετὸς κύριος Ev τοῖς κρίμασιν αὐτοῦ Ev στόματι ὁσίων, 
καὶ σὺ εὐλογημένος, ᾿Ισραήλ ὑπὸ κυρίου εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.Ἔ 

Here, in the first line, αἰνετός precedes, because the predi- 
cate is emphatic; but in the second, the subject, o%, pre- 
cedes, because it is meant to receive the emphasis. I per- 
ceive no antithesis or studied chiasmus here. The sentence 
is no more a “double” or “compound” one than Gen. xiv. 
TO; 29: 1..Sam: xxv. 22, 25; 85 xxi, (xx) i186 ΟΡ τι 
13, 16 (Sin.) Judith xiii, 18; Orat: Azar. 2; and Wl see ne 
reason why the fact that the clauses are connected by «ai 
should affect the position of εὐλογητός here more than in 
those passages,— no reason why it should affect it at all. 

Another example in which the subject precedes ἐπικατάρατος 
and εὐλογημένοξ in an optative or possibly a predictive sen- 
tence is Gen. xxvii. 20, ὁ καταρώμενός σε ἐπικατάρατος, ὁ δὲ εὐλογῶν σε 
εὐλογημένος. Here the Greek follows the order of the Hebrew, 
and the reason for the unusual position in both I suppose to 
be the fact that the contrast between ὁ καταρώμενος and ὁ εὐλογῶν 
naturally brought the subjects into the foreground. It is 
true that in Rom. ix. 5, as I understand the passage (though 
others take a different view), there is no antithesis, as there 
is here; but the example shows that, when for any reason 


*See O. F. Fritzsche, Ziérz apoc. V. T. Gr. (1871), p. 579, or Hilgenfeld, Messias Judaeo- 
yume (1869), p. 14. 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 357 


the writer wishes to make the subject prominent, there is 
no law of the Greek language which imprisons such a predi- 
cate as εὐλογημένος at the beginning of the sentence. 

Another example, in a declarative sentence, but not the 
less pertinent on that account (the verb not being ex- 
pressed), is Gen. xxvi. 29, according to what I believe to be 
the true reading, καὶ viv σὺ εὐλογητὸς ὑπὸ κυρίου, where the σύ being 
emphatic, as is shown by the corresponding order in He- 
brew, stands before εὐλογητός. Contrast Gen. iii. 14; iv. τι; 
Josh. ix. 29 (al. 23). This reading is supported by αἱ the 
uncial MSS. that contain the passage,— namely, I. Cod. Cot- 
ton.) (cent, v.); [ED Alex. τὺ X.. Coishin, (vit), and: Bodl: 
(vill. or ix.) ed. Tisch. Mon. Sacr. Ined., vol. ii. (1857), Ὁ 234, 
with at least twenty-five cursives, and the Aldine edition, 
also by all the ancient versions except the Aethiopic, and the 
Latin, which translates freely, against the καὶ viv εὐλογημένος ob 
of the Roman edition, which has very little authority here.* 

Still another case where in a declarative sentence the 
usual order of subject and predicate is reversed, both in the 
Greek and the Hebrew, is 1 Kings ii. 45 (al. 46), καὶ ὁ Βασιλεὺς 
Σαλωμὼν εὐλογημένος, the ellipsis being probably éorw. Here I 
suppose the reason for the exceptional order to be the con- 
trast between Solomon and Shimei (ver. 44). 

It is a curious fact that μακαριστός, a word perfectly ‘analo- 
gous to εὐλογητός, and which would naturally stand first in the 
predicate, happens to follow the subject in the only in- 
stances of its use in the Septuagint which come into com- 
parison here,— namely, Prov. xiv. 21; xvi. 20; xxix. 18. 
The reason seems to be the same as in the case we have just 
considered: there is a contrast of subjects. For the same 
reason ἐπικατάρατος follows the subject in Wisd. xiv. 8 (comp. 
wer 7): 

These examples go to confirm Winer’s statement in re- 
spect to contrasted subjects. And I must here remark, in 


*The statement above about the reading of the ancient versions in Gen. xxvi. 29 lacks preci- 
sion. The versions made directly from the Hebrew, of course, do not come under consideration. 
Of those made from the Septuagint, the Armenian, the Georgian, and the Old Slavic (Cod. 
Ostrog.) support σὺ evdoy,; the Aethiopic, ev/0y. ou; the Old Latin has perished; and the 
Coptic, as I am informed by Professor T. O. Paine, omits the last clause of the verse. 


358 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


respect to certain passages which have been alleged in oppo- 
sition (see Dr. Dwight as above, p. 36), that I can perceive 
no contrast of subjects in Gen. xiv. 19, 205 1 Sam. xxv. 32, 
33; orin Ps. Ixxxviii. (Ixxxix.) 53, where the doxology appears 
to have no relation to what precedes, but to be rather the 
formal doxology, appended by the compiler, which concludes 
the Third Book of the Psalms (comp. Ps. xl. (xl1.) 14). 

It may be said that none of the examples we have been 
considering is preczsely similar to Rom. ix. 5. But they all 
illustrate the fact that there is nothing to hinder a Greek 
writer from changing the ordinary position of εὐλογητός and 
kindred words, when from any cause the subject is naturally 
more prominent in his mind. They show that the prevcz- 
ple of the rule which governs the position may authorize 
or require a deviation from the common order. I must 
further agree with Meyer and Ellicott on Eph. i. 3, and 
Fritzsche on Rom. ix. 5, in regarding as not altogether 
irrelevant such passages as Ps. cxil. (CXiil.) 2, εἴ τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου 
εὐλογημένον, Where, though «iy precedes, as a copula it can have 
no emphasis; and the position of εὐλογημένον is determined 
by the fact that the subject rather than the predicate here 
naturally presents itself first to the mind. The difference 
between such a sentence and εὐλογημένον τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου 15 like 
that in English between “May the name of the Lord be 
blessed” and “Blessed be the name of the Lord.” It is 
evident, I think, that in the latter sentence the predicate 
is made more prominent, and in the former the subject; 
but, if a person does not fee/ this, it cannot be proved. 
Other examples of this kind are Ruth ii. 19; 1 Kings x. 9; 
2xChron; ix, 8; Job.1. 219 Danimile2o sr l775S aera 
77. 8. Marci, c. 20; a. (Hammond, pps 52, τῶ ΠΡ ΕΞ 
ΣΙ (cxili.) 2 and Job i. 21, ‘theyprominence piven to the 
subject is suggested by what precedes. 

I will give one example of the fallacy of merely empirical 
rules respecting the position of words. Looking at Young’s 
Analytical Concordance, there are, if I have counted right, 
one hundred and thirty-eight instances in which, in sen- 
tences like “ Blessed be God,” “ Blessed are the meek,” the 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 359 


word “blessed” precedes the subject in the common Eng- 
lish Bible. There is no exception to this usage in the Old 
Testament or the New. “Here,” exclaims the empiric, ‘‘is 
a law of the language. To say ‘God be blessed’ is not Eng- 
lish.” But, if we look into the Apocrypha, we find that our 
translators Aave said it,— namely, in Tobit x1. 17; and so it 
stands also in the Genevan version, though the Greek reads 
εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεός. Why the translators changed the order must 
be a matter of conjecture. Perhaps it was to make a con- 
trast with the last clause of the sentence. 

There is a homely but important maxim which has been 
forgotten in many discussions of the passage before us, that 
“circumstances alter cases.” I have carefully examined all 
the examples of doxology or benediction in the New Testa- 
ment and the Septuagint, and in other ancient writings, as 
the Liturgies, in which εὐλογητός or εὐλογημένος precedes the sub- 
ject; and there is not one among them which, so far as I 
can judge, justifies the assumption that, because εὐλογητός pre- 
cedes the subject there, it would probably have done so 
here, had it been the purpose of Paul to introduce a doxol- 
ogy. The cases in which a doxology begins without a previ- 
ous enumeration of blessings, but in which the ¢hought of 
the blessing prompts an exclamation of praise or thanksgiv- 
ing,— “Blessed be God, who” or “for he” has done this 
or that,—are evidently not parallel. All the New Testa- 
ment doxologies with εὐλογητός, and most of those in the Sep- 
tuagint, are of this character.* In these cases, we perceive 
at once that any other order would be strange. ‘The expres- 
sion of the feeling, which requires but one word, naturally 
precedes the mention of the ground of the feeling, which 
often requires very many. But there is a difference be- 
tween εὐλογητός and εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Where it would be 
natural for the former to precede the subject, it might be 
more natural for the latter to follow. In the example ad- 
duced by Dr. Dwight in his criticism of Winer (see as above, 


*See Luke i. 68; 2 Cor. i. 3; Eph. 1. 3; 1 Pet.i.3. Gen. xiv. 20, xxiv. 27; Ex. XVili. 103 
Ruth iv. 14; 1 Sam. xxv. 32, 39; 2 Sam. xvii. 28; 1 Kings i, 48, v. 7, vili. 15, 56; 2 Chron. 11. 12, 
xi. 4: Ezra vii. 27; Ps. xxvit. (Sept.) 6, xxx. 22, Ixv. 20, Ixxi. 18, CXxili. 6, cxxxiv. 21, cxliul. 
1, Dan. iii. 28 Theodot., 95 Sept. 


360 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


pp. 36, 37), it is evident that εὐλογητός more naturally stands 
first in the sentence; at the end, it would be abrupt and 
unrhythmical. But I cannot think that a Greek scholar 
would find anything hard or unnatural in the sentence if it 
read, 6 διατηρήσας τὸν ἑαυτοῦ τόπον ἀμίαντον evAoyyTo¢ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν. 

To make the argument from usage a rational one, exam- 
ples sufficient in number to form the basis of an induction 
should be produced in which, in passages “ke the present, 
εὐλογητός precedes the subject. Suppose we should read here, 
εὐλογητὸς ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, WE instantly see that the 
reference of εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας becomes, to say the least, ambigu- 
ous, the “for ever” grammatically connecting itself with 
the phrase “he who is God over all” rather than with 
“blessed.” If, to avoid this, we read, εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ὁ dv 
ἐπὶ πάντων θεός, we have a sentence made unnaturally heavy and 
clumsy by the interposition of εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας before the subject, 
—a sentence to which I believe no parallel can be produced 
in the whole range of extant doxologies. Wherever εὐλογητός 
precedes, the subject drectly follows. These objections to 
the transposition appear to me in themselves a sufficient 
reason why the Apostle should have preferred the present 
order. But we must also consider that any other arrange- 
ment would have failed to make prominent the particular 
conception of God, which the context suggests, as the Ruler 
over All. If, then, the blessings mentioned by the Apostle 
suggested to his mind the thought of God as εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς 
αἰῶνας, in view of that overruling Providence which sees the 
end from the beginning, which brings good out of evil and 
cares for all men alike, I must agree with Winer that “the 
present position of the words is not only altogether suitable, 
but even necessary.” (Gram., 7te Aufl, §61. 3. e. p. 513; 
p. 551 Thayer, p. 690 Moulton.) Olshausen, though he 
understands the passage as relating to Christ, well says: 
“Riickert’s remark that εὐλογητός, when applied to God, must, 
according to the idiom of the Old and New Testament, 
always precede the noun, is of no weight. Kollner rightly 
observes that the position of words is altogether [every- 
where] not a mechanical thing, but determined, in each par- 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS ΙΧ. 5 361 


ticular conjuncture, by the connexion and by the purpose of 
the speaker.” * 

7. The argument founded on the notion that the Apostle 
here had in mind Ps. Ixvii. (Ixvili.) 20, and was thereby led 
to describe Christ as θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, is one which, so 
far as I know, never occurred to any commentator, ancient 
or modern, before the ingenious Dr. Lange. Its weakness 
has been so fully exposed by Dr. Dwight (as above, p. 33, 
note) that any further notice of it is unnecessary. 

8. The argument for the reference of the 4%», etc., to 
Christ, founded on supposed patristic authority, will be 
considered below under IV., in connection with the history 
of the interpretation of the passage. 


II. I have thus endeavored to show that the construction 
of the last part of the verse as a doxology suits the context, 
and that the principal objections urged against it have little 
or no weight. 

But the construction followed in the common version is 
also grammatically unobjectionable ; and, if we assume that 
the Apostle and those whom he addressed believed Christ 
to be God, this construction likewise suits the context. 

How then shall we decide the question? If it was an 
ambiguous sentence in Plato or Aristotle, our first step 
would be to see what light was thrown on the probabilities 
of the case by ¢he writer's use of language elsewhere. Look- 
ing then at the question from this point of view, I find three 
reasons for preferring the construction which refers the last 
part of the verse to God. 

I. The use of the word εὐληνητός, “blessed,” which never 
occurs in the New Testament in reference to Christ. If 
we refer εὐλογητός to God, our passage accords with the dox- 
ologies Rom. i. 25; 2 Cor. i. 3; xi. 31; and Eph. 1. 3. In 
Rom. i. 25, we have εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, as here; and 2 Cor. 
xi. 31, “The God and Father (or God, the Father) of the 
Lord Jesus knows — he who is blessed for ever !—that I lie 


*Olshausen, Bibl. Comm. on the N. T., vol. iv., p. 88, note, Kendrick’s trans. The remark 
cited from Riickert belongs to the first edition of his Commentary (831). Τὰ the second edition 
(1839), Riickert chang-d his view of the passage, and adopted the construction which makes the 
last part of the verse a doxology to God. ᾿ 


362 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


not,” strongly favors the reference of the εὐλογητός to God.* 
It alone seems to me almost decisive. The word εὐλογητός is 
elsewhere in the New Testament used in doxologies to God 
(Luke i. 68; 1 Pet. i. 3); and in Mark xiv. 61, ὁ εὐλογητός, “the 
Blessed One,” is a special designation of the Supreme Being, 
in accordance with the language of the later Jews, in whose 
writings God is often spoken of as ‘the Holy One, blessed 
pertie! 7 

I have already spoken (see above, p. 342) of the rarity of 
doxologies to Christ in the writings of Paul, the only instance 
being 2 Tim. iv. 18, though here Fritzsche (22. ad Rom. 11. 
268) and Canon Kennedy (Z/y Lectures, Ὁ. 87) refer the 
κύριος to God. Doxologies and thanksgivings to God are, on 
the other hand, very frequent in his Epistles. Those with 
εὐλογητός are given above; for those with δόξα, see Rom. ΧΙ. 36, 
xvis-27 5) Galo 5; pb. dit..21/3> Phil. cage elim ey 
(τιμὴ καὶ δόξα) ; π-- τιμὴ καὶ κράτος, I Tin. vay 16: (Comp. δοξάζω, 
Rom. xv. 6, 9.) Thanksgivings, with xépe first, Rom. vi. 17, 
vil, 25(Machmy, Disch., Trem, WH.) ¢ 2)Cor.yail, πο τ" 
7@ 62 des first, 1 Cor. xv. 57; 2 Cor. il. 14; δἰ το στῶ, Rom. 1. 8; 
ποῦ τ {τὴ} xiv. 185. Ἔρις το ἘΠῚ Το 6 kool aaa 
ΤΣ Mhesso.i. 2, 4.) 1332 Thess. ios, aia tayo nilems 
Note especially the direction, “g¢ving thanks always for all 
things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ zo God, even 
the Hather,”’ Eph: v. 203° comp: Gal, τ τῇ. "do all imi tite 
name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father 
through him.” These facts appear to me to strengthen 
the presumption founded on the usage of εὐλογητός, that in 
this passage of ambiguous construction the doxological 
words should be referred to God rather than to Christ. 

It may be of some interest to observe that, in the Epistle 
of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians,— probably the ear- 
liest Christian writing that has come down to us outside of 
the New Testament,—there are eight doxologies to God; 
namely, *cc:) 32, 38, 43; 45,58, 61, 64).65, and) none: that 
clearly belong to Christ. Two are ambiguous; namely, cc. 


*For the way in which the Rabbinical writers are accustomed to introduce doxologies into 
the middle of a sentence, see Schoettgen’s Horae Hebraicae on 2 Cor. xi. 31. 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 363 


20, 50, like Heb. xiii. 21, 1 Pet. iv. 11, which a majority of 
the best commentators refer to God as the leading subject; 
see Dr. Dwight as above, p. 46. The clear cases of doxolo- 
gies to Christ in the New Testament are Rev. i. 6, 2 Pet. iii. 
18 (a book of doubtful genuineness), and Rev. v. 13, “to 
Him that sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb”; comp. 
vil. 10. But our concern is chiefly with the usage of Paul. 

The argument from the exclusive use of the word εὐλογητός 
in reference to God has been answered by saying that εὐλογητός 
is also applied to man; and Deut. vii. 14, Ruth ii. 20, and 
I Sam. xv. 13 are cited as examples of this by Dr. Gifford. 
But he overlooks the fact that εὐλογητός is there used in a 
totally different sense; namely, “favored” or “blessed” 
by God. To speak of a person as “blessed” by God, or to 
pray that he may be so, and to address a doxology to him, 
are very different things. [See Essay XVII. p. 437.] 

Note further that εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος Ev ὀνόματι κυρίου, Ps. ecxvil. 
(cxvili.) 26, applied to Christ in Matt. xxi. 9 and the parallel 
passages, is not a doxology. Comp. Mark xi. 10; Luke i. 
28,42: 

On the distinction between εὐλογητός and εὐλογημένος, see Note 
B, at the end of this article. 

2. The most striking parallel to ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων in the writings 
of Paul is in Eph. iv. 5, 6, where Christians are said to have 
*‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of 
all, who ἐς over all (ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων), and through all, and in all.” 
Here it is used of the one God, expressly distinguished from 
Christ. 

3. The Apostle’s use of the word θεός, “God,” throughout 
his Epistles. This word occurs in the Pauline Epistles, not 
including that to the Hebrews, more than five hundred 
times; and there is not a single clear instance in which it 
is applied to Christ. Alford, and many other Trinitarian 
commentators of the highest character, find no instance 
except the present. Now, in a case of ambiguous construc- 

‘tion, ought not this zz/orim usage of the Apostle in respect 
to one of the most common words to have great weight? 
To me it is absolutely decisive. 


364 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


It may be said, however, that Paul has nowhere declared 
that Christ is zo¢ God;* and that, even if he has not hap- 
pened to give him this title in any other passage, he must 
have believed him to be God, and therefore might have so 
designated him, if occasion. required. 

As to the statement that Paul has nowhere expressly 
affirmed that Christ was zot God, it does not appear that, 
supposing him to have believed this, he ever had occasion 
to say it. It is certainly a remarkable fact that, whatever 
may have been the teaching of Paul concerning the nature 
of Christ and the mode of his union with God, it appears, 
so far as we can judge from his writings, to have raised no 
question as to whether he was or was not God, jealous as the 
Jews were of the divine unity and disposed as the Gentiles 
were to recognize many gods besides the Supreme. 

It is important to observe, in general, that in respect to 
the application to Christ of the z2mz “God” there is a very 
wide difference between the usage not only of Paul, but of 
all the New Testament writers, and that which we find in 
Christian writers of the second and later centuries. There 
is no clear instance in which any New Testament wy?ter, 
speaking in his own person, has called Christ God. In John 
i, 18, the text is doubtful; and,in τ John v. 20, the οὗτος more 
naturally refers to the leading subject in what precedes,— 
namely, τὸν ἀληθινόν͵---- and is so understood by the best gram- 
marians, as Winer and Buttmann, and by many eminent 
Trinitarian commentators. [See Essay XVIII. Note C. sub 
jfin.| In John i. 1, θεός is the predicate not of the historical 
Christ, but of the antemundane Logos. The passages which 
have been alleged from the writings of Paul will be noticed 
presently. ἢ 

But it may be said that, even if there is no other passage 
in which Paul has called Christ God, there are many in 
which the works and the attributes of God are ascribed to 
him, and in which he is recognized as the object of divine 


*See Dr. Dwight’s Essay, as above, pp. 25, 30, 43. 


+ On John xx. 28 and Heb. i. 8, 9, which do not belong to the category we are now con- 
sidering, I simply refer, for the sake of brevity, to Norton’s Statement of Reasons, etc., new 
edition (1856), p. 300 ff., and the note of E. A., or to the note of Liicke on the former passage, 
and of Professor Stuart on the latter. On 2 Peteri. 1, see Huther. 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 365 


worship ; so that we ought to find no difficulty in supposing 
that he is here declared to be “God blessed for ever.” It 
may be said in reply, that the passages referred to do not 
authorize the inference which has been drawn from them; 
and that, if they are regarded as doing so, the unity of God 
would seem to be infringed. A discussion of this subject 
would lead us out of the field of exegesis into the tangled 
thicket of dogmatic theology: we should have to consider 
the questions of consubstantiality, eternal generation, the 
hypostatic union, and the sezoszs. Such a discussion would 
here be out of place. But it is certainly proper to look 
at the passages where Paul has used the clearest and 
strongest language concerning the dignity of Christ and his 
relation to the Father, and ask ourselves whether they allow 
us to regard it as probable that he has here spoken of him 
as “God over all, blessed for ever,’ or even as “over all, 
God blessed for ever.” 

In the Epistles which purport to be written by Paul there 
is only one passage besides the present in which any consid- 
erable number of respectable scholars now suppose that he 
has actually called Christ God, namely, Titus ii. 13. Here 
the new Revised Version, in the text, makes him speak of 
“our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” But the un- 
certainty of this translation is indicated by the marginal 
rendering, “the great God and our Saviour”; and, in an- 
other paper, I have stated my reasons for believing the 
latter construction the true one. [See Essay XVIII.] This 
latter construction was preferred by a large majority of the 
American Company of Revisers, and it has the support of 
many other eminent Trinitarian scholars. Surely, so doubt- 
ful a passage cannot serve to render it probable that Christ 
is called ‘‘ God blessed for ever” in Rom. ix. 5. 

Acts xx. 28 has also been cited, where, according to the 
textus receptus, Paul, in his address to the Ephesian elders, 
is represented as speaking of ‘the Church of God, which he 
purchased with his own blood.” This reading is adopted by 
the English Revisers in their text, and also by Scrivener, 
Alford, and Westcott and Hort ; but its doubtfulness is indi- 


366 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


cated by the marginal note against the word “God,” in 
which the Revisers say, “ Many ancient authorities read 
the Lord.” Here, again, the marginal reading is preferred 
by the American Revisers, as also by Lachmann, Tregelles, 
Green, Davidson, and Tischendorf. I have given my reasons 
for believing this the true reading in an article in the Bzd/io- 
theca Sacra for April, 1876 [see Essay XV.]. And, although 
Westcott and Hort adopt the reading God, Dr. Hort well 
remarks that “the supposition that by the precise designa- 
tion τοῦ θεοῦ, standing alone as it does here, with the article 
and without any adjunct, St. Paul (or St. Luke) meant 
Christ is unsupported by any analogies of language.’”’ Call- 
ing attention to the fact that the true text has the remarka- 
ble form, διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου, he would understand the pas- 
sage, ‘‘on the supposition that the text is incorrupt,” as 
speaking of the Church of God which he _ purchased 
“<through the blood that was his own,’ ze. as being his 
Son’s.” “This conception,” he remarks, “of the death of 
Christ as a price paid by the Father is in strict accordance 
with St. Paul’s own language elsewhere (Rom. v. 8; viii. 
32). It finds repeated expression in the Apostolic Constitu- 
tions in language evidently founded on this passage (ii. 57. 
03); SOW, As; PV, 26.41; “ville LT, 2] 12 PSs Aas |) Θπ τ: 
supposition that ὑεοῦ is the true reading, the passage has been 
understood in a similar manner not merely by Socinian in- 
terpreters, as Wolzogen and Enjedinus, but by Erasmus (in 
his Paraphrase), Pellican,* Limborch (though he prefers the 
reading «vpiov), Milton (De Doctrina Christiana, Pars I. c. v. 
p. 86, or Eng. trans. p. 148 £.), Lenfant and Beausobre as an 
alternative interpretation (Le Mouveau Test., note zn /oc.), 
Doederlein (/vst. Theol. Christ., ed. 6ta, 1797, § 105, Obs. 4, 
p. 387), Van der Palm (note in his Dutch translation), Gran- 
ville Penn (Zhe Book of the New Covenant, London, 1836, 
and Aznotations, 1837, p. 315), and Mr. Darby (77ans. of the 
NV. T., 2d ed. [1872]). Dr. Hort, however, is disposed to 
conjecture that rior dropped out after Trorrator “at some 


ἘΠ Erga congregationem dei quae vobis oscitanter ‘curanda non est, ut quam deus aded 
charam habuit, ut unigeniti sui sanguine eam paraverit.”” Cos. in loc., Tiguri, 1537, fol. 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 367 


very early transcription, affecting all existing documents.” 
Granville Penn had before made the same suggestion. It is 
obvious that no argument in support of any particular con- 
struction of Rom. ix. § can be prudently drawn from such 
a passage as this. 

A few other passages, in which some scholars still suppos - 
that the name God is given to Christ by Paul, have been 
examined in the paper on Titus ii. 13 (see Essay XVIII. 
notes to pp. 440, 447; also Dr. Dwight, as above, p. 44). 

Let us now look at the passages in which Paul has used 
the most exalted language respecting the person and dignity 
of Christ, and ask ourselves how far they afford a presump- 
tion that he might here describe him as “ God blessed for 
ever.” 

The passage in this Epistle most similar to the present is 
ch. 1. vv. 3, 4, where Christ is said to be “born of the seed 
of David as to the flesh,” but “declared to be the Son of God 
with power as to the spirit of holiness by his resurrection 
from the dead,” or, more exactly, “by the resurrection of 
the dead.” Here the antithesis to κατὰ σάρκα is supplied. It 
is not, however, κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, OY κατὰ τὴν θείαν φύσιν, but κατὰ πνεῦμα 
ἁγιωσύνης, as to his holy spirit,’— his higher spiritual nature, 
distinguished especially by the characteristic of oliness. 
There are many nice and difficult questions connected with 
this passage which need not be here discussed ; I will only 
say that I see no ground for finding in it a presumption that 
the Apostle would designate Christ as “God blessed for 
ever.” Some, however, suppose that the title “Son of God”’ 
is essentially equivalent to θεός, and that the resurrection of 
Christ as an act of his own divine power is adduced here as 
a proof of his deity. I do not find the first supposition sup- 
ported by the use of the term in the Old Testament or in 
the New (see John x. 36); and, as to the second, it may be 
enough to say that it contradicts the uniform representation 
of the Apostle Paul on the subject, who everywhere refers 
his resurrection to the power of “(οὐ the Father.” See 
Gale Vs Eph, ἢ: τον 20. Romynvan2 a vig 4, Vill, PL, x. Ὁ 
MeG ai Vi IA, τὺ τ: ΘΟ, ἢν one whi A TL Wess: 1. BOR 
Acts xiii. 30-37, xvil. 31 


368 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Another striking passage is Phil. ii, 6-11, where the 
Apostle says that Christ, “existing in the form of God, 
counted not the being on an equality with God* a thing to 
be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a ser- 
vant, being made in the likeness of men.”” Without entering 
into any detailed discussion of this passage, it may be enough 
to remark that being in the form of God, as Paul uses the ex- 
pression here, is a very different thing from being God; that 
the μορφή cannot denote the nature or essence of Christ, be- 
cause it is something of which he is represented as empty- 
ing or divesting himself. The same is true of the τὸ εἶναι ἴσα 
θεῷ, “the being on an equality with God,” or “like God,” 
which is spoken of as something which he was not eager to 
seize, according to one way of understanding ὡἁρπαγμόν, or not 
eager to retain, according to another interpretation.t The 
Apostle goes on to say that, on account of this self-abnega- 
tion and his obedience even unto death, ‘Gop highly exalted 
him and gave him the name which is above every name; 
that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow... and 
that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, 
to the glory of God the Father.” I cannot think that this 
passage, distinguishing Christ as it does so clearly from God, 
and representing his present exaltation as a reward bestowed 
upon him by God, renders it at all likely that Paul would 
call him “God blessed for ever.” 

We find a still more remarkable passage in the Epistle to 
the Colossians, i. 15-20, where it is affirmed concerning the 
Son that “he is the image of the invisible God, the first- 
born of all creation; for in him were all things created, 
things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions 
or principalities or powers; all things have been created 
through him and unto him; and he is before all things, and 
in him all things consist [ov hold together]. And he is the 


*Or, as the Rev. Dr. B. H. Kennedy, Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Cam- 
bridge, translates it, ‘‘the being like God’’; compare Whitby's note on the use of ἴσα. See 
Kennedy’s Occasional Sermons preached before the University of Cambridge, London, 1877, 
p. 62, or Ely Lectures (1882), p. 17 f. 


+See Grimm's Lexicon Novi Testamenti, ed. 2da (1879), 5. v. μορφή» for one view; for an- 
other, Weiss’s Biblische Theol. des N. T., § 103 c, p. 432 f£., 3te Aufl. (1880). 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 369 


head of the body, the Church, who is the beginning, the 
first-born from the dead; that in all things he might have 
the pre-eminence [more literally, “decome first”’]. For it 
was the good pleasure [of the Father] that in him should all 
the fulness dwell; and through him to reconcile all things 
unto himself.” In this passage, and in Col. ii. 9, 10, where 
the Apostle says of Christ “in him dwelleth all the fulness 
of the Godhead bodily, and in him are ye made full, who is 
the head of all principality and power,” we find, I believe, 
the strongest language which Paul has anywhere used con- 
cerning Christ’s position in the universe and his relation to 
the Church. I waive all question of the genuineness of the 
Epistle. Does, then, the language here employed render it 
probable that Paul would, on occasion, designate Christ as 
“over all, God blessed for ever’? 

Here certainly, if anywhere, we might expect that he 
would call him God; but he has not only not done so, but 
has carefully distinguished him from the being for whom he 
seems to reserve that name. He does not call him God, but 
“the zmage of the invisible God” (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 4, and I 
Cor. xi. ἢ) His agency in the work of creation is also re- 
stricted and made secondary by the use of the prepositions 
évand διά, clearly indicating that the conception in the mind 
of the Apostle is the same which appears in the Epistle to 
the Hebrews, i. 3; that he is not the primary source of the 
power exerted in creation, but the being “ ¢krvough whom 
Gop made the worlds,” δὲ οὗ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας: comp. also I 
Cor. viil. 6, Eph. iii. 9 (though here διὰ ᾽Τησοῦ Χριστοῦ is not gen- 
uine), and the well-known language of Philo concerning the 
Logos.* Neither Paul nor any other New Testament writer 


* Philo calls the Logos the ‘‘ Son of God,’’ ‘‘the eldest son,’’ ‘‘the first-begotten,’’ and his 
representation of his agency in creation is very similar to that which Paul here attributes to ‘‘the 
Son of God's love’’ (ver. 13). He describes the Logos as ‘“‘the zwage of God, through whom 
the whole world was framed,” εἰκὼν θεοῦ, δὲ οὗ, kK. τ. Δ. (De Monarch. ii. 5, Opp. ii. 225 ed. 
Mangey); ‘‘the instrument, through which [ox whom] the world was built,”’ ὄργανον δὲ ov 
k, τ. A, (De Cherub. c. 35, Opp. i. 162, where note Philo's distinction between πὸ ὑφ᾽ οὐ, τὸ ἐξ 
ov, TO OL ov, and τὸ δὲ 6); “the shadow of God, using whom as an instrument he made the 
world” (Legg. Adleg. iii. 31, Opp. i. 106). In two or three places he exceptionally applies the 
term θεός to the Logos, professedly using it in a lower sense (év κατα χρήσει), and making a 
distinction between θεός, without the article, ‘‘ @ divine being,” and ὁ θεός, ‘‘the Divine Being.” 
(See De Som. i. 38, Opp. i. 655, and comp. Legg. Adleg. iii. 73, Opp. i. 128, 1. 43.) In a frag- 


370 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


’ 


uses the preposition ὑπό, “by,” in speaking of the agency of 
the Son or Logos in creation. The designation “first-born 
of all creation” seems also a very strange one to be applied 
to Christ conceived of as God. Some of the most orthodox 
Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries, as Athanasius, 
Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodore of Mop- 
suestia, and Augustine, were so perplexed by it that they 
understood ‘he Apostle to be speaking here of the new, 
spiritual creation;* and the passage has been explained as 
relating to this by some eminent modern interpreters, as 
Grotius, Wetstein, Ernesti, Noesselt, Heinrichs, Schleier- 
macher, Baumgarten-Crusius, Norton, — though, I believe, 
erroneously. But I shall not discuss here the meaning of 
πρωτότοχος πάσης κτίσεως, J would only call attention to the way 
in which the Apostle speaks of the good pleasure of God, the 
Father, as the source of Christ’s fulness of gifts and powers. 
“For it was the good pleasure [of Godj that in him should 
all the fulness dwell” (ver. 19). This declaration explains 
also Gol. 1: 9: comp: Eph. iii: 19) 1v. 13, John. 06, 4See 
also John xiv. 10, ill. 34 (?). 

It thus appears, I think, first, that there is no satisfactory 
evidence that Paul has elsewhere called Christ God, and, 
secondly, that in the passages in which he speaks of his 
dignity and power in the most exalted language he not only 
seems studiously to avoid giving him this appellation, but 
represents him as deriving his dignity and power from the 
being to whom, in distinction from Christ, he everywhere 
gives that name,—the “one God, the Father.” 


ment preserved by Eusebius (Praes. Evang. vii. 13, or Philonis Off. ii. 625) he names the 
Logos ὁ δεύτερος θεός, “the second [oy inferior] God,” distinguished from “‘the Most High 
and Father of the universe,’ “the God who is before [ov above, πρό] the Logos.’’ So he applies 
the term to Moses (comp. Ex. vii. 1), and says that it may be used of one who “‘ procures good 
(τὸ ἀγαθὸν) for others,” and is ‘‘wise.”” De Mut. Nom. c. 22, Opp. 1. 597, 598; see also De 
Mos. i. 28, Opp. ii. 106 [misprinted 108], where Moses is called ὅλου τοῦ ἔθνους θεὸς καὶ 3α- 
σιλεύς; Quod det. pot. insid. c. 44, Opp. i. 222; De Migr. Abr. c. 15, Opp. i. 449; Leeg. 
Alleg.i. 13, Opp. i. 151; Quod omn. prob. liber, c. 7, Opp. ii. 452; De Decem Orac. c. 23, Opp. 
ii, 201. But, though he speaks of the Logos in language as exalted as Paul uses concerning the 
Son, he would never have dreamed of calling him ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς 
αἰῶνας. 


*See Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 214 ff. [p. 148 ff. 
7th ed.] ; 

+ 6 θεός (or ὁ πατῆρ) must be supplied as the subject οὗ εὐδόκησεν: Comp. ver. 20, and 
Lightfoot’s note. So Meyer, De Wette, Alford, Eadie, and the great majority of expositors. 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 Oye 


We have considered the strongest passages which have 
been adduced to justify the supposition that Paul mzght 
apply this title to Christ. I have already intimated that 
they do not seem to me to authorize this supposition. But, 
admitting for the sake of argument that we must infer from 
these and other passages that he really held the doctrine of 
the consubstantiality and co-eternity of the Son with the 
Father, and that on this account he would have been jus¢z- 
fied in calling him God, this does not remove the great im- 
probability that he “as so designated him, incidentally, in 
Rom. ix. 5, in opposition to a usage of the term which per- 
vades all his writings. The question still forces itself upon 
us, What was the ground of this usage? Wyy has he else- 
where avoided giving him this title? In answering this 
question here, wishing to avoid as far as possible all dog- 
matic discussion and to confine myself to exegetical consid- 
erations, I shall not transgress the limits of recognized or- 
thodoxy. The doctrine of the swbordination of the Son to 
the Father, in his divine as well as his human nature, has 
been held by a very large number, and, if I mistake not, by 
a majority of professed believers in the deity of Christ. The 
fourth and last Division or “Section” of Bishop Bull’s 
famous Defensio Fidet Nicaenae is entitled De Subordina- 
tione Filit ad Patrem, ut ad sui originem ac principium. He 
maintains and proves that the Fathers who lived before and 
many, at least, of those who lived after the Council of Nice 
unequivocally acknowledged this subordination (though the 
post-Nicene writers were more guarded in their language), 
and that on this account, while calling the Son θεός and θεὸς 
ἐκ θεοῦ, as begotten from the substance of the Father, they 
were accustomed to reserve such titles as ὁ θεός used abso- 
lutely, εἷς θεός, and ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων or ἐπὶ πᾶσι θεός for the Father 
alone. The Father alone was “uncaused,” “ unoriginated,” 
“the fountain of deity” to the Son and Spirit.* Now the 
word θεός was often used by the Fathers of the second and 


¥ 
*The ancient doctors of the church,’’ as Bishop Pearson remarks, ‘‘have not stuck to call 
the Father ‘the origin, the cause, the author, the root, the fountain, and the head of the Son,’ or 
the whole Divinity.’’ Zxosition of the Creed, chap. i. p. 38, Nichols’s ed. 


Ἴ7Ξ CRITICAL ESSAYS 


later centuries not as a proper, but as a common name; 
angels, and even Christians, especially in their beatified 
state, might be and were called θεοί. It had also a meta- 
phorical and rhetorical .use, quite foreign from the style of 
the New Testament.* All this made it easy and natural, 
especially for the Fathers who were converts from heathen- 
ism, to apply the title in a relative, not absolute, sense to 
the Son, notwithstanding the pre-eminence which they as- 
cribed to the Father. We find traces of this loose use of 
the name in Philo, as I have observed (see p. 369, note). 
But there is no trace of such a use in the writings of Paul. 
The points, then, which I would make are these: that, even 
granting that he believed in the deity of the Son as set forth 
in the Nicene Creed, he yet held the doctrine of the szdor- 
dination of the Son so strongly in connection with it that 
we cannot wonder if oz this account he reserved the title θεός 
exclusively for the Father; and that the way in which he 
has expressed this subordination, and the way in which he 
has used this title, render it incredible that he should in this 
single instance (Rom. ix. 5) have suddenly transferred it to 
Christ, with the addition of another designation, ‘‘ blessed 
for ever,” elsewhere used by him of the Father alone. 

I do not see how any one can read the Epistles of Paul 
without perceiving that, in speaking of the objects of Chris- 
tian faith, he constantly uses θεός as a proper name, as the 
designation of the Father in distinction from Christ. See, 
for example, Rom. i. 1-3, “the gospel of God, which he had 
before promised ... concerning his Son”; ver. 7, “ God our 
Father, and the Lord Jesus*Christ”; ver. ὃ. 1 thank my 
God, through Jesus Christ”; ver. 9, “God is my witness, 
whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of his Son”; and so 
all through the Epistle; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, ‘‘ All things are of 


* For proof and illustration of what has been stated, see Norton’s Gexuineness of the Gospels, 
2d ed., vol. iii, Addit. Note D, ‘‘On the Use of the Words edc and deus’’; Statement of Rea- 
sons, 12th ed., pp. 113, 114 note, 120 note, 300 f., 314, 319 f., 365 note, 468; Sandius, /xterpreta- 
tiones Paradoxae (1669), p. 227 ff.; Whiston’s Primitive Christianity Reviv'd, vol. iv. p. 100 
ff.; LeClere (Clericus), Avs Critica, Pars II. Sect. I. c. 111.) vol. i. p. 145 ff., 6th ed., 1778; 
Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of Alexandria, by John [Kaye], Bs. of 
Lincoln, 1835, p. 253; Bretschneider, Handbuch der Dogmatik, 4te Aufl. (1838), i. 596, 
note 333. 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 375 


God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave 
unto us the ministry of reconciliation ; to wit, that God was 
in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning 
unto them their trespasses’’; Eph. v. 20, ‘giving thanks 
always for all things, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
to God, even the Father”; though among the heathen there 
are gods many and lords many (1 Cor. viii. 6), “to us there 
is oxe God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we 
unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are 
alk things,’ and*we through him ἢ; phy ἵν ἢ ὁ Phere 15 
“Cone Lord, one faith, one baptism, oze God and Father of 
all, who ts over al/, and through all, and in youall”; 1 Tim. 
11. 5, “There is oxe God, one mediator also between God and 
men, [himself] a man, Christ Jesus’; v.21, “I charvesthee 
before God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels”; Titus 
ili. 4-6, ‘God our Saviour” poured out upon us the Holy , 
Spirit “through Jesus Christ our Saviour.” Observe how 
strongly the subordination of the Son is expressed in pas- 
sages where his dignity and lordship are described in the 
loftiest strain: Eph. i. 16-23, ““—in my prayers, that the 
God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give 
unto you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge 
of him; ... that ye may know what is the exceeding great- 
ness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to that 
working of the strength of his might which he wrought in 
Christ when he vatsed him from the dead, and made him to 
sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all 
rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every 
name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that 
which is to come: and he put all things in subjection under 
his feet, and give him to be head over a!l things to the 
Church, ~ jer Cori; 22, 23, “alluthinestare yours ; and: ye 
are Christ’s; and Christ is God's”; xi 3, “the head of 
every man is Christ; and the head of the -voman is the 
man; and the head of Christ is God”; xv. 24, ‘‘ Then com- 
eth the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, 
even the Mather’; vv, 27, 55. But when he saith, All 
things are put in subjection, it is evident that He is ex- 


374 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


cepted who did subject all things unto him. And when all 
things have been subjected unto him, THEN shall the Son 
also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things 
unto him, that God may be all in all.” 

Can we believe that he who has throughout his writings 
placed Christ in such a relation of subordination to the 
Father, and has habitually used the name Gop as the pecul- 
iar designation of the Father in distinction from Christ, who 
also calls the Father the one God, the only wise God (Rom. 
xvi. 27), the only God (1 Tim. i. 17), and the God of Christ, 
has here, in opposition to the usage elsewhere uniform of 
a word occurring five hundred times, suddenly designated 
Christ as “over all, God blessed for ever”? At least, 
should not the great improbability of this turn the scale, in 
a passage of doubtful construction ? 

4. There is another consideration which seems to me to 
render it very improbable that Paul has here deviated from 
his habitual restriction of the name God to “the God and 
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” If he has spoken of 
Christ in this passage as ‘‘God blessed for ever,” he has 
done it odtter, as if those whom he addressed were familiar 
with such a conception and designation of him. But can 
this have been the case with the Roman Church at so early 
a stage in the development of Christian doctrine? 

It is the view of many Trinitarians that the doctrine that 
Christ is God was not explicztly taught in the early preach- 
ing of the Apostles. We find no trace of such teaching in 
the discourses of Peter or of Stephen in the Book of Acts, 
and none in those of the Apostle Paul (the passage Acts xx. 
28 has already been examined), as we find none in the Sy- 
noptic Gospels, which represent the instruction concerning 
Christ given by the Apostles and their companions to their 
converts.* Nor does it appear in the so-called Apostles’ 


* There is nothing in St. Peter’s sermon upon the day of Pentecost which would not, in 
ali probability, have been acknowledged by every Ebionite Christian down to the time when they 
finally disappear from history. Yet upon such a statement of doctrine, miserably insufficient as 
all orthodox churches would now call it, three thousand Jews and proselytes were, without delay, 
admitted to the Sacrament of Baptism.... We must carefully bear in mind what was St. Peter’s 
object. It was to convince the Jews that Jesus Christ was the great appvinted Teacher whom 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 375 


Creed. When we consider further the fact already men- 
tioned above (see p. 364), that Christ is nowhere called God 
in any unambiguous passage by any wrzter of the New Tes- 
tament,* and that it is nowhere recorded that he ever 
claimed this title, we cannot reasonably regard this absti- 
nence from the use of the term as accidental. In reference 
to the early apostolic preaching in particular, many of the 
Christian Fathers, and later Trinitarian writers, have recog- 
nized a prudent reserve in the communication of a doctrine 
concerning Christ and the application of a title to him 
which would at once have provoked vehement opposition on 
the part of the unbelieving Jews, which would have been 
particularly liable to be misunderstood by the Gentiles, and 
must have required much careful explanation to reconcile it 
with the unity of God and the humanity of Christ.t We 
nowhere find either in the Acts or the Epistles any trace of 
the controversy and questionings which the direct announce- 
ment of such a doctrine must have excited. The one aim of 
the early apostolic preaching was to convince first the Jews, 
and then the Gentiles, that Jesus, whose life and teaching 
were so wonderful, whom God had raised from the dead, was 
the Messiah, exalted by God to bea Prince and a Saviour. 


God had sent,—the true spiritual Prince whom they were to obey. The Apostle felt that, if they 
acknowledged these great truths, everything else would fo.low in due time.’? Τὶ W. Mossman, 
B.A., Rector of Torrington, A History of the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ, etc., London, 
1873, pp. 192, 190. Gess naively asks, “‘ Wie diirfte man von dem galildischen Fischer, welcher 
der Wortfiihrer der junger Gemeinde war, eine befriedigende Dogmatik erwarten?” Chréstz 
Person und Werk, i. i. 13. See also Dr. John Pye Smith’s Scripture Testimony to the 
Messiah, Book III. Chap. V. (vol. ii. p. 151 ff, 5th ed.). 


*I speak of the historical Christ, which is the subject in Rom, ix. 5. The unique prologue 
of John’s Gospel, in which the Logos or Word is once called θεός (i. τ, comp. ver. 18 in the text 
of Tregelles and Westcott and Hort), cannot reasonably be regarded as parallel to the present 
passage. This is candidly admitted by Schultz, who has most elaborately defended the construc- 
tion which refers the last part of Rom. ix. 5 to Christ. He says, ‘‘ Nach unseren Primissen 
versteht sich von selbst, dass wir nicht etwa daraus, dass der λόγος θεός genanot wird, Beweise 
zichen wollen fiir die Zulassigkeit des Namens θεός fiir den verklarten Jesus.”’ (Jahrbiicher fiir 
deutsche Theol., 1868, xiii. 491.) I of course do not enter here into the difficult questions as to 
what was precisely John’s conception of the Logos, and in what sense he says “‘ the Word became 
flesh,” language which no one understands literally. We must consider also the late date of 
the Gospel of John as compared with the Epistle to the Romans. 


{ For superabundant quotations from the Christian Fathers confirming the statement made 
above, notwithstanding a few mistakes, see Priestley’s History of Early Opinions concerning 
Jesus Christ, Book III. Chap. IV.-VII. (vol. iii. p. 85 ff., ed. of 1786). Or see Chrysostom’'s 
Homilies on the Acts, assivz. How this doctrine would have struck a Jew may be seen from 
Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho. 


376 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


To acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, or Jesus as Lord, which 
is essentially the same thing, was the one fundamental ar- 
ticle of the Christian faith.* Much, indeed, was involved in 
this confession; but it.is now, I suppose, fully established 
and generally admitted that the Jews in the time of Christ 
had no expectation that the coming Messiah would be an 
incarnation of Jehovah, and no acquaintance with the mys- 
tery of the Trinity.} Such being the state of the case, it 
seems to me that, on the supposition that the Apostles were 
fully enlightened in regard to the mystery of the Trinity 
and the hypostatic union, the only tenable ground to be 
taken is that they wisely left these doctrines to develop 
themselves gradually in “the Christian consciousness.”’ As 
Dr. Pye Smith remarks, ‘ The whole revelation of the Chris- 
tian system was given by an advancing process. It cannot, 
therefore, be a matter of surprise that the doctrine concern- 
ing the person of the Messiah was developed gradually, and 
that its clearest manifestation is to be found in the latest 
written books of the New Testament.” (U¢ supra, p. 155.) 
Canon Westcott observes, ‘‘The study of the Synoptists, 
of the Apocalypse, and of the Gospel of St. John in succes- 
sion enables us to see under what human conditions the 


*See Neander, History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the 
Apostles, Book I. Chap. II. Comp. Matt. xvi. 16; Mark viii. 29; Luke ix. 20; John vi. 69, 
xx. 31; Acts ii. 36, v. 42, vili. 5, ix. 20, 22, xvii. 3, xvill. 5,28; Rom. x. 9, ota bene ; τ Cor. xii. 
Bebe COravies sere ONuMVv.T 2, ν- d- 

+See the art. Messzas, by Oehler, in Herzog’s Real-Eucyklopidie der prot. Theol. und 
Kirche, ix. 437 ff., or in the new ed., vol. ix. (1881), p. 666 ff.; Ferd. Weber, System der altsyna- 
gogalen palistin. Theol. (1880), p. 146 ff., 339 ff. Passages from the Rabbinical writings are some- 
times adduced by commentators on Rom. ix. 5 in which the name Jehovah, or Jehovah our right- 
eousness, is said to be given to the Messiah. But the irrelevance of these citations has been 
repeatedly exposed; see Fritzsche, Ef. ad Rom. ii. 269, note; Weber, ut supra, "Ὁ. 342. Weber 
says, ‘‘Und wenn Baéa bathra 75 gesagt wird, der Messias werde nach dem Namen Jehova’s 
ἼΣΟΣ Miu genannt, so stehen an dieser Stelle in gleicher Beziehung die Gerechten und Jeru- 


salem.”’ Comp. Jer. xxiii. 6 with xxxiii. 16, and on this passage see Oehler, Theol. des A. T. ii. 
263; Riehm, Messianic Prophecy, p. 262, note 36; Schultz, A dttest. Theol., 2te Aufl. (1878), p. 
740. On Isa. ix. 6, see Schultz, p. 727; Htzig, Vorlesungen iiber bibl. Theol., αι. 5. w. (1880), 
p. 206 ff., and the commentators, as Gesenius, Knobel, Ewald, Cheyne. That the Memra da 
Yeya or “ Word of Jehovah”? is not identified in the Targums with the Messiah is certain. See 
Smith’s Dict. of the Bible, art. ‘‘ Word,”’ vol. iv. p. 3557 b, Am. ed., and Weber, wt supra, p. 339- 
It is time that the book Zohar, which figures so conspicuously in Schoettgen, Bertholdt, and other 
writers, but is now proved to be a pseudograph of the thirteenth century, should cease to be 
quoted as an authority for Jewish opinions in the time of Christ. See Ginsburg, The Kabbala 
(London, 1855), p. 78 ff., espec. p. go ff. One who is di,posed to rely on Hengstenberg’s Christ- 
ology in relation to this subject should compare the rcview of it by Dr. Noyes in the Christzax 
Examiner (Boston) for January, May, and July, 1836. 


΄ 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 577 


full majesty of Christ was perceived and declared, not all at 
once, but step by step, and by the help of the old prophetic 
teaching.” (lntrod. to the Gospel of St. John in the so- 
called “Speaker’s Commentary,” p. Ixxxvii.) Canon Ken- 
nedy even says: “I do not think that any apostle, John or 
Peter or Paul, was so taught the full μυστήριον θεότητος as that 
they were prepared to formulate the decrees of Niczea and 
Constantinople, which appeared after three hundred years 
and more, or the Trinitarian exegesis, which was completed 
after six hundred years and more. But they, with the other 
evangelists, guided by the Holy Spirit, furnished the mate- 
rials from which those doctrines were developed.” (£/y 
Lectures, p. xix.) 

Taking all these facts into consideration, is it probable 
that at this early day the Jewish Christians and Gentile be- 
lievers at Rome, who needed so much instruction in the very 
elements of Christianity, were already so fully initiated into 
the mysterious doctrine of the deity of Christ that the appli- 
cation of the term God to him, found in no Christian writ- 
ing that we know of till long after the date of this Epistle, 
could have been familiar to them? Accustomed to the rep- 
resentation of him as a being distinct from God, would they 
not have been startled and amazed beyond measure by find- 
ing him described as ‘over all, God blessed for ever” ? 
But if so, if this was a doctrine and a use of language with 
which they: were not familiar, it is to me wholly incredible 
that the Apostle should have introduced it abruptly in this 
incidental manner, and have left it without remark or expla- 
nation. 

Dr. Hermann Schultz, whose elaborate dissertation on 
Rom. ix. 5 has been already referred to, admits that if ἐπὶ 
πάντων θεός was used here to designate the λόγος, the eternal Son 
of God,—in other words, if θεός was used here in reference 
to the nature of Christ,— “the strict monotheism of Paul 
would certainly require an intimation that the honor due to 
God alone was not here trenched upon” (bceinvtrdchtigt).* 
The expression, he maintains, describes “the dignity con- 


* Schultz, Jahrbiicher f. deutsche Theol., 1868, xiii. 484. 


378 _CRITICAL ESSAYS 


ferred upon him by (οὐ: the θεός here is essentially equiv- 
alent to κύριος, ‘The predicate θεός must be perfectly cov- 
ered by the subject Χριστός, 2,6. the Messianic human King 
of Israel.” * 

But these concessions of Schultz seem to me fatal to his 
construction of the passage. If θεός, used in the metaphysi- 
cal sense, describing the zature of Christ, would confessedly 
need explanation, to guard against an apparent infringement 
of the divine unity, would not Paul’s readers need to be 
cautioned against taking it in this sense,— the sense which 
it has everywhere else in his writings? Again, if Paul by 
θεός here only meant κύριος, why did he not say κύριος, this being 
his constant designation of the glorified Christ (comp. Phil. 
11. Q-I1) ? 

This leads me to notice further the important passage, I 
Cor. vili. 6, already quoted (see above, p. 373). It has often 
been said 7 that the mention here of the Father as the “one 
God” of Christians no more excludes Christ from being 
God and from receiving this name than the designation of 
Christ as the “one Lord” excludes the Father from being 
Lord and receiving this name. But, in making this state- 
ment, some important considerations are overlooked. In 
the first place, the title ‘‘god’’ is unquestionably of far 
higher dignity than the title “lord”; and because godship 
zucluds lordship, with all the titles that belong to it, it by 


*This view of Schultz appears to be that of Hofmann (Der Schriftbeweis, 2te Aufl , 1857, 
i 143) and Weiss (B:d2. Theol. d. N. T., 3te Aufl., 1880, p. 283, note 5), as it was formerly of 
Ritschl (Die Extstehung der Altkath. Kirche, 2te Aufl., 1857, p. 79 f.). This is the way, also, 
in which the old Socinian commentators understood the passage, as Socinus, Crell, Sch’ichting, 
Wo zvogen. They did not hesitate to give the name ‘‘ God’”’ to Christ any more than the ancient 
Ariaus did, understanding it in a lower sense, and referring especially in justification of this to 
John x. 34-36, and various passages of the Old Testament. So it appears to have been taken by 
some of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, who referred the last clause of the verse to Christ, as probably 
by Novatian, who quotes the passage twice as proof that Christ is Deus (De Regula Fidei or De 
Trin. cc. 13, 30), but who says, ‘‘ Dominus et Deus coxstitutus esse reperitur’’ (c. 20); “hoc 
ipsum @ Patre proprio consecutus, ut omnium et Deus esset et Dominus esset”’ (c. 22); ‘* om- 
nium Deus, quoniam omnibus illum Deus Pater praeposuit quem genuit’’ (c. 31). So Hippo- 
lytus (Coz¢t. Noét. c. 6) applies the verse to Christ, and justifies the languaze by quoting Christ’s 
declaration, “‘ All things have been delivered to me by the Father.’’ He cites other passages 
in the same connection, and says, ‘‘ If then all things have been subjzcted unto him with the 
exception of him who subjected them, he rules over all, dut the Father rules over him.” 


+ See, e.g., Chrys. De tncomprehens. Dei nat. Hom. v. c. 1, Opp. i. 481 f. (590), ed. Montf. : 
Ei γὰρ τὸ ἔνα λέγεσϑαι ϑεὸν τὸν πατέρα ἐκάλλει TOV υἱὸν τῆς ϑεότητος, Kal TO ἕνα 
λέγεσϑαι κύριον τὸν υἱὸν ἐκβάλλει τὸν πατέρα τῆς κυριότητος. 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 379 


no means follows that lordship includes godship, and has 
a right to its titles; in other words, that one who is properly 
called a lord (κύριος), as having servants or subjects or pos- 
sessions, may therefore be properly called a god (θεός). In 
the second place, the lordship of Christ is everywhere rep- 
resented not as belonging to him by watwre, but as conferred 
upon him by the one God and Father of all. This lordship 
is frequently denoted by the figurative expression, “ sitting 
on the right hand of God.” * The expression: is borrowed 
from Ps. cx., so often cited in the New Testament as appli- 
cable to Christ, and particularly by Peter in his discourse on 
the day of Pentecost, who, after quoting the words, “ The 
Lord [Jehovah] said unto my Lord [Adonz], ‘Sit thou on 
my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool,’” goes 
on to say, “ Let all the house of Israel therefore know as- 
suredly that God hath mabe him both Lord and Christ, this 
jesus whom ye crucified” (Acts i. 35, 36). It is he to 
whom ‘all authority was g?vez in heaven and on earth,” 
whom “ God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and 
a Saviour” ; “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ... put all 
things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head 
over all things to the Church”; “gave unto him the name 
which is above every name, . . . that every tongue should 
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God, the 
Father.” Such being Paul’s conception of the relation of 
Christ to God, is it not the plain meaning of the passage 
that, while the heathen worship and serve many beings 
whom they call “gods” and “lords,” to Christians there is 
but one God, the Father,— one being to whom they give 
that name, “from whom are all things’? and who is the 
object of supreme worship; and one being “through whom 
are all things,’ through whom especially flow our spiritual 
blessings, whom “God hath made both Lord and Christ,’ 
and whom Christians therefore habitually call “the Lord”? 
The fact that this appellation of Christ, under such circum- 
stances, does not debar the Supreme Being from receiving 


*See Knapp, De Jesu Christo ad dextram Dei sedente, in his Scripta vari A rgumentt, 
ed. 2da (1823), 1. 39-76. 


380 _CRITICAL ESSAYS 


the name “Lord”’ obviously affords no countenance to the 
notion that Paul would not hesitate to give to Christ the 
name “God.” Asa matter of fact, “the Lord” is the com- 
mon designation of Christ in the writings of Paul, and is 
seldom used of God, except in quotations from or references 
to the language of the Old Testament.* There, in the Sep- 
tuagint, Κύριος is used of God sometimes as a proper name, 
taking the place of Jehovah (Yahweh) on account of a Jew- 
ish superstition, and sometimes as an appellative. 


Glancing back now for a moment over the field we have 
traversed, we may reasonably say, it seems to me, frst, that 
the use of εὐλογητός, elsewhere in the New Testament re- 
stricted to God, the Father,— in connection with the exceed- 
ing rarity, if not absence, of ascriptions of praise and thanks- 
giving to Christ in the writings of Paul and their frequency 
in reference to God,—affords a pretty strong presumption in 
favor of that construction of this ambiguous passage which 
makes the last clause a doxology to the Father; secondly, 
that some additional confirmation is given to this reference 
by the εἷς θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ πάντων, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων, in Eph. lV. OF and, 
thirdly, that the at first view overwhelming presumption in 
favor of this construction, founded on the uniform restric- 
tion of the designation θεός, occurring more than five hun- 
dred times, to God, the Father, in the writings of Paul, is 
not weakened, but rather strengthened, by our examination 
of the language which he elsewhere uses respecting the dig- 
nity of Christ and-his relation to God. ‘And, though our 
sources of information are imperfect, we have seen that 
there are very grave reasons for doubting whether the use 
of θεύς as a designation of Christ belonged to the language of 
Christians anywhere at so early a period as the date of this 
Epistle (czv. a.D. 58). 

Beyond a doubt, all the writers of the New Testament 
and the early preachers of Christianity believed that God 
was united with the man Jesus Christ in a way unique and 


***On the meaning of K YPIO® in the New Testament, particularly on the manner in which 
this word 1s employed by Paul in his Epistles,’’ see the valuable article of Professor Stuart in 
the Biblical Repository (Andover) for October, 1831, i. 733-776. His view is that the κυρεότης 
which Christ has as the Messiah is a delegated dominion. Ἢ 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS ΙΧ. 5 381 


peculiar, distinguishing him from all other beings ; that his 
teaching and works and character were divine; that God 
had raised him from the dead, and exalted him to be a 
Prince and a Saviour; that he came, as the messenger of 
God’s love and mercy, to redeem men from sin, and make 
them truly sons of God; that “God was in Christ reconcil- 
ing the world unto himself.” But no New Testament writer 
has defined the mode of this union with God. How much 
real light has been thrown upon the subject by the councils 
of Nicaea and Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon, and 
the so-called Athanasian Creed, is a question, on which there 
may be differences of opinion. The azthority of councils 
is another question. But it has been no part of my object, 
in discussing the construction of the passage before us, to 
argue against the doctrine of the Nicene Creed. My point 
is simply the wse of language at the time when this Epistle 
was written. The questions of doctrine and language are, 
of course, closely connected, but are not identical. It seems 
to me that a believer in the deity of Christ, admitting the 
fact that we have no clear evidence that the ‘“ mediator be- 
tween God and men” was ever called “God” by any New 
Testament writer, or any very early preacher of Christianity, 
may recognize therein a wise Providence which saved the 
nascent Church from controversies and discussions for which 
it was not then prepared. 


III. We will now consider some other constructions of 
the passage before us. (See above, p. 335.) 

1. I refrain from discussing in detail the comparative 
merits of Nos. 1 and 2. The advocates of No. 1 observe 
correctly that it describes Christ as only ἐπὶ πάντων θεός, not 
ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεός, which they say would identify him with the 
Father. But if the Father is “God over all,” and Christ 
is also “God over all,” the question naturally arises how 
the Father can be “225 God over all,” unless the term 
“God” as applied to Christ is used in a lower sense. The 
answers to this question would lead us beyond the sphere 
of exegesis, and I pass it by. Meyer thinks that, if we 


382 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


refer the ὁ ὧν to Christ, this is the most natural construction 
of the words; and it seems to have been adopted by most 
of the ancient Fathers who have cited the passage, at least 
after the Council of Niczea, and in nearly all the generally 
received modern translations, from Luther and Tyndale 
downwards. 

2. Construction No. 2 aims to escape the difficulty pre- 
sented by No. 1, but involves some ambiguities. Does the 
sentence mean, ‘‘ who is over all (Jews as well as Gentiles), 
and who is also God blessed for ever” (so Hofmann, Kahnis, 
Die luth. Dogm. i. 453 £.)? or does it mean, “celui qui est 
élevé sur toutes choses, comme Dieu béni éternellement’”’ ? 
as Godet translates it (Comm. 11. 256), contending that ἐπὶ 
πάντων ig not to be connected with éedc, but with ὦν, though he 
had before translated, inconsistently it would seem, “lui qui 
est Dieu au-dessus de toutes choses béni éternellement ” 
(pp. 248, 254). Lange finds in the last clause “a quotation 
from the synagogical liturgy,” together with “a strong Pau- 
line breviloquence,” the ellipsis in which he supplies in a 
manner that must always hold a high place among the curi- 
osities of exegesis. He says, however, that “every exposi- 
tion is attended with great difficulties.” I cannot discover 
that “God blessed for ever,’ as a kind of compound name 
of the Supreme Being, occurs in Jewish liturgies or any- 
where else. 

3. Construction No. 3 is defended particularly by Gess, 
who maintains, in opposition to Schultz and others, that θεός 
here “nicht Christi Machtstellung sondern seine Wesenheit 
bezeichnet.” (Christi Person und Werk, i. i. 207.) But 
on this supposition he admits that the connecting of θεός 
with ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων Would present a serious difficulty. ‘ The 
care with which Paul elsewhere chooses his expressions in 
such a way that the supreme majesty of the Father shines 
forth would be given up.’ Meyer thinks that the punctua- 
tion adopted by Morus and Gess makes “ die Rede” “noch 
zerstiickter, ja kurzathmiger,” than construction No. 5. But 
this is rather a matter of taste and feeling. The objections 
which seem to me fatal to all the constructions which refer 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 383 


the name θεός here to Christ have been set forth above, and 
need not be repeated. 

If the view of Westcott and Hort is correct, the construc- 
tion of this passage adopted by Hippolytus (Cozt. Moé?. c. 6) 
agrees with that of Gess in finding three distinct affirma- 
tions in the clause beginning with ὁ ὧν, in opposition to those 
who would read it μονοκώλως. But the passage in Hippolytus 
is obscure. See below under IV. 

4. Under No. 4 I have noticed a possible construction, 
for which, as regards the essential point, I have referred to 
Wordsworth’s note in his M Z. zz Greck, new ed., vol. ii. 
(0504)2. Ele translates in his note om ver. 5: “He, that is 
existing above all, God Blessed for ever,’ and remarks: 
“There is a special emphasis on ὁ ὦν. He that zs; He Who 
is the dezmg One; JEHOVAH. See John i. 18; Rev.i. 4, 8; 
Iv. 8; xl. 17; xvi. 5, compared with Exod. iii. 14, ἐγώ εἰμι, 6 dv. 
And compare on Gal. iii. 20.” ‘“‘ He Who came of the Jews, 
according to the flesh, is no other than ὁ ὧν, the BEING ONE, 
Jexnovan.” We have an assertion of “His Lvrzstence from 
Everlasting in 6.” He mistranslates the last part of 
Athanasius, Orat. cont. Arian. i. ὃ 24, p: 338, thus: “ Paul 
asserts that He is the splendour of His Father’s Glory, 
and is the Being One, over all, God Blessed forever.” In 
his note on vv. 4, 5, on the other hand, he translates the 
present passage: “Christ came, Who is over all, God 
Blessed for ever,’ 

There is some confusion here. The verb εἰμί may denote 
simple existence; it may (in contrasts) denote χεαζ in dis- 
tinction from seeming existence; it may be, and commonly 
is, used as a mere copula, connecting the subject with the 
predicate. As applied to the Supreme Being in Exod. iii. 
17 (sept), Wisd, Sol. xiii. 1, ete} Ὁ δ rie who Is,” de- 
scribes him as possessing not only real, but independent and 
hence eternal existence. This latter use is altogether pecul- 
iar. To find it where ὧν is used as a copula, or to suppose 
that the two uses can be combined, is purely fanciful and 
arbitrary. It was not too fanciful and arbitrary, however, 
for some of the Christian Fathers, who argue Christ’s eter- 


384 _CRITICAL ESSAYS 


nal existence from the use of # or ὁ ὧν (or guz est) in such 
passages as John i. 18; iii. 13 (T. R.); vi. 46; Rom. ix. 5; 
Heb. i. 3. So Athanasius, as above; Epiphanius, Axcorat. 
c. §; Gregory of Nyssa, ddv. Eunom, lib. x., Opp. (1638) il. 
680-682 ; Pseudo-Basil, Adv. Eunom. iv. 2, Opp. 1. 282 (399) ; 
Chrysostom, Og. i. 476 f., viii. 87, ed. Montf.; Hilary, De 
Trin. xii. 24; cf. Cyril. Alex. Zhes. i. 4. So Proclus of 
Constantinople, Ep. ad Armen. de Fide, c. 14, quoting Rom. 
ix. 5, SayS: εἶπεν αὐτὸν ὄντα, iva ἄναρχον βροντήσῃ, “he spoke of 
him as Jezzg, that he might declare in thunder his existence 
without beginning.”” (Migne, Patrol. Gr. Ixv. 872°.) 

5. The construction, “from whom is the Messiah as to 
the flesh, he who is over all: God be blessed for ever!” has 
found favor with some eminent scholars (see below under 
IV.), and deserves consideration. If adopted, I think we 
should understand ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων not as meaning “he who is 
superior to all the patriarchs’’ (Justi and others), which is 
tame, and would hardly be expressed in this way; nor “he 
who is over all things,” which, without qualification, seems 
too absolute for Paul; but rather, “who is Lord of all” 
(Jews and Gentiles alike), comp. Acts x. 36; Rom. x. 12, 
xi. 32; who, though he sprang from the Jews, is yet, as the 
Messiah, the ruler of a kingdom which embraces all men. 
(See Wetstein’s note, near the end.) The natural contrast 
suggested by the mention of Christ’s relation to the Jews 
κατὰ σάρκα, may justify us in assuming this reference of πάντων, 
which also accords with the central thought of the Epistle. 
The doxology, however, seems exceedingly abrupt and curt ; 
and we should expect ὁ θεός instead of θεός as the subject of 
the sentence, though in a few cases the word stands in the 
nominative without the article. Grimm compares θεὸς μάρτυς, 
1 Thess. ii. 5, with papruc ὁ θεός, Rom. i. Q; also 2 Cor. v. 19; 
- Gal. ii. 6, vi. 7; Luke xx. 38 (ἡ. We should also πηι 
expect εὐλογητός to stand first in the doxology; but the posi- 
tion of words in Greek is so largely subjective, depending 
on the feeling of the writer, that we cannot urge this objec- 
tion very strongly. The thought, so frequent in Paul, of 
God as the source, in contrast-with, or rather in distinction 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 385 


from, Christ as the medium of the Messianic blessings, may 
have given the word θεός prominence. (See above, p. 356 f., 
in regard to the position of the subject in contrasts.) Gess 
accordingly dismisses the objection founded on the position 
of εὐλογητός, remarking, “die Voranstellung von θεός hatte 
durch den Gegensatz gegen Christum ein zureichendes 
Motiv” (μὲ supra, p. 206). Still, on the whole, construc- 
tion No. 7 seems to me much easier and more natural. 

6. The construction numbered 6 was, I believe, first pro- 
posed by Professor Andrews Norton, in his review of. Pro- 
fessor Stuart’s Letters to Dr. Channing. This was published 
in the Christzan Disciple (Boston) for 1810, new series, vol. 
pe 370 π΄ on. Rom, ix, 5, see'p: 478 if). Whe passase is 
discussed more fully in his Statement of Reasons, etc. (Cam- 
bridge and Boston), 1833, p. 147 ff.; new ed. (ster. 1856), p. 
203 ff., 470 ff., in which some notes were added by the writer 
of the present essay. There, after giving as the literal 
rendering, ‘‘ He who was over all was God, blessed for ever,”’ 
Mr. Norton remarks: “‘He who was over all,’ that is, 
over all which has just been mentioned by the Apostie.” 
“Among the privileges and distinctions of the Jews, it could 
not be forgotten by the Apostle, that God had presided over 
all their concerns in a particular manner.” 

There is no grammatical objection to this construction of 
the passage. (See above, p. 346, Ist paragr.) Mr. Norton, 
in translating vv. 4 and 5, uses the gas¢ tense in supplyiny 
the ellipsis of the substantive verb. This is done by other 
translators ; ¢.g¢., Conybeare and Howson. It may be ques- 
tioned, however, whether this is fully justified here. Canon 
Kennedy uses the present tense, but seems to take the same 
general view of the bearing of the passage as Mr. Norton. 
See his Occasional Sermons, pp. 64, 65, and Ely Lectures, 
pp. 88, 89. 

As regards this view of the passage, I will only say here 
that the thought presented in Mr. Norton’s translation did 
not need to be expressed, as it is fully implied in the nature 
of the privileges and distinctions enumerated. (See above, 
p. 341.) Taking Professor Kennedy’s rendering, I doubt 


386 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


whether the Apostle would have used this language in 
respect to the relation existing between God and the Jewish 
people at the time when he was writing. The Jews gloried 
in God as their God in a special sense (Rom. 11. 17) ; but, in 
Paul’s view, it was Christians, now, who rightfully gloried in 
God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. v. I1; comp. 
lil. 29). 

7. I add a single remark, which might more properly 
have been made before. I have rendered ὁ χριστός here not 
“ Christ,” as a mere proper name, but “the Messiah.” Not 
only the use of the article, but the context, seems to me to 
require this. Westcott and Hort observe in regard to the 
word χριστός: “We doubt whether the appellative force, with 
its various associations and implications, is ever entirely lost 
in the New Testament, and are convinced that the number 
of passages is small in which Messiahship, of course in the 
enlarged apostolic sense, is not the principal intention of the 
word.” (Zhe N. T. τη: Greek, vol. 11., Introd., p. 317.) 


IV. We wiil now take notice of some points connected 
with the Azstory of the interpretation of Rom. ix. 5. The 
fullest account of this is perhaps that given by Schultz in 
the article already repeatedly referred to; but he is neither 
very thorough nor very accurate. 

The application of the passage by the Christian Fathers 
will naturally come first under consideration. 

The fact that the great majority of the Fathers whose 
writings have come down to us understood the last part of 
the verse to relate to Christ has been regarded by many as 
a very weighty argument in favor of that construction. I 
have had occasion to consider the value of this argument 
in connection with another passage. (See Essay XVIII, 
p. 445.) The remarks there made apply equally to the 
present case. The fact that the Fathers, in quoting a pas- 
sage grammatically ambiguous, have given it a construction 
which suited their theology, does not help us much in deter- 
mining the true construction. We must remember, also, 
the looser use of the term θεός which prevailed in the latter 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 387 


part of the second century and later. (See above, p. 371 f.) 
Those in the second and third centuries who held strongly 
the doctrine of the inferiority of the Son, and the Arians 
in the fourth, like the Socinians at a later period, did not 
hesitate to apply the name “ God”’ to Christ, and would find 
little difficulty in a construction of the passage which in- 
volved this. They might hesitate about the expression 
“God over all”; but, as we have seen, though natural, it 
is not necessary to connect the ἐπὶ πάντων with θεός. 

The specimen of patristic exegesis in the construction 
given to 2 Cor. iv. 4, where so many of the Fathers make 
the genitive τοῦ αἰῶνος depend not on ὁ θεός, but τῶν ἀπίστων (see 
Essay XVIIL., δ. s.), will be sufficient for most persons who 
wish to form an estimate of their authority in a case like 
the present. I will only ask further, taking the first exam- 
ples that occur to me, how much weight is to be attributed 
to the judgment of Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, Isidore of Pelusium, Gennadius, Theodorus Mona- 
chus, Joannes Damascenus (?), Photius, G4cumenius (or what 
passes under his name), and Theophylact, when, in their zeal 
for the freedom of the will, they explain πρόθεσις in Rom. viii. 
28 (τοῖς κατὰ πρόθεσιν KAyroic), NOt as denoting the Divine pur- 
pose, but the purpose or choice of the subjects of the call? 
(Cyril of Alexandria gives the words both meanings at the 
same time.) What is the value of the opinion of Chrys- 
ostom, Joannes Damascenus, Gécumenius, and Theophylact, 
that διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ in Rom. xvi. 27 15 to be construed with 
στηρίξαι in ver. 25? Shall we accept the exegesis of Chrys- 
ostom and Theophylact when they tell us that in the injunc- 
tion of Christ in Matt. v. 39 not to resist τῷ πονηρῷ, τῷ πονηρῷ 
means the devil? 

Dean Burgon, in his article on “New Testament Revi- 
sion” in the Quart. Rev. for Jan., 1882,* has given (p. 54 ff.) 
perhaps the fullest enumeration yet presented of ancient 
Christian writers who have referred the ὁ ὧν, «.7.4- in Rom. 
ix. 5 to Christ. He counts up “55 illustrious names,” forty 
of Greek writers, from Irenzus in the latter part of the 


[* Reprinted in The Revision Revised (London, 1883); see p. 212.] 


388 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


second century to John of Damascus in the eighth, and 
fifteen of Latin writers, from Tertullian at the beginning 
of the third century to Facundus in the sixth, “who all 
see in Rom. ix. 5 a glorious assertion of the eternal God- 
head of Curist.” An examination of his list will show 
that it needs some sifting. Most of the Latin writers 
whom he mentions, as Augustine, knew little or nothing 
of Greek, and their authority cannot be very weighty in 
determining the construction of an ambiguous Greek sen- 
tence. Of his illustrious names, six are unfortunately 
unknown, being writers ‘of whom,” as Mr. Burgon mildly 
puts it, “3 have been mistaken for Athanasius, and 3 for 
Chrysostom.”’ Another is the illustrious forger of the An- 
swers to Ten Questions of Paul of Samosata, fathered 
upon Dionysius of Alexandria, ‘certainly spurious,” accord- 
ing to Cardinal Newman and the best scholars generally, 
and marked as pseudonymous by Mr. Burgon himself. 
Methodius should also have been cited as Pseudo-Method- 
ius (see p. 391 f), and Czesarius as Pseudo-Casarius. Among 
the other illustrious names, we find “6 of the Bishops at 
the Council of Antioch, a.p. 269.” On looking at the 
names as they appear in Routh’s Rell. Sacrae, ed. alt. 
(1846), iii. 289, I regret my inability to recall the deeds or 
the occasion that made them “illustrious,” unless it is the 
fact that, as members of that Council, about half a century 
before the Council of Niczea, they condemned the use of the 
term ὁμοούσιος, “ consubstantial,” which was established by the 
latter as the test and watchword of orthodoxy. 

Next to the six bishops and “‘ps.-Dionysius Alex.” in Mr. 
Burgon’s list of the illustrious Fathers “who see in Rom. 
ix. 5 a glorious assertion of the eternal Godhead of Christ,” 
we find “Constt. App.,” that is, the Apostolical Constitu- 
tions, with a reference to “vi. c. 26.” He does not quote 
the passage. It reads as follows: ‘Some of the heretics 
imagine the Christ [so Lagarde; or @the Lord,;’ “Cotelier 
and Ueltzen] to be a mere man...; but others of them 
suppose that Jesus himself is the God over all, glorifying 
him as his own Father, supposing him to be Son and Para- 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 389 


clete; than which doctrines what can be more abomina- 
ble?” Compare Const. Apost. iii. 17: “The Father is the 
God over all, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεός; Christ is the only-begotten God, 
the beloved Son, the Lord of glory.” See also vi. 18. 

One is surprised, after this, to find that Mr. Burgon did 
not cite for the same purpose Pseudo-Ignatius ad Tars. cc. 
2, 5, and ad Philip. c. 7, where it is denied emphatically that 
Christ is ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεός, and also Origen, Cont. Cels. viii. 14, 
who says: “Grant that there are some among the mul- 
titude of believers, with their differences of opinion, who 
rashly suppose that the Saviour is the Most High God over 
all; yet certainly we do not, for we believe him when he 
said, Zhe Father who sent me ts greater than I’ The very 
strong language which Origen uses in many other places, 
respecting the inferiority of the Son, renders it unlikely 
that he applied the last part of this verse to Christ. See, 
ee, Cons (ει δ. will. 155. De Princip. τ 3: ὃ τὶ In loan) tom 
is CCl 2,93, OF VIL, 22; σι 25 Rutinus Ss -Latin version) Gt 
Origen’s Commentary on Romans, which is the only author- 
ity for ascribing to Origen the common interpretation of this 
passage, is no authority at all. He, according to his own 
account of his work, had so transformed it by omissions, 
additions, and alterations, that his friends thought he ought 
to claim it as his own.* It was in accordance with his pro- 
fessed principles to omit or alter in the works which he 
translated whatever he regarded as dangerous, particularly 
whatever did not conform to his standard of orthodoxy. 
His falsification of other writings of Origen is notorious. 
Westcott and Hort remark that in the Rufino-Origenian 
commentary on this verse “there is not a trace of Origenian 
language, and this is one of the places in which Rufinus 
would not fail to indulge his habit of altering an interpre- 
tation which he disapproved on doctrinal grounds.” They 


* See his Perorazzo at the end of the Epistle; Origenis Opp. iv. 688 f., ed. Dela Rue. Mat- 
thai remarks: ‘“‘ Rufini interpretatio, que parum fidei habet, in epistola ad Romanos, quod 
quilibet ipse intelligit, non tam pro Origenis opere, quam pro compendio Rufini haberi detet, 
quod haud dubie alia omisit, alia, sicut in ceteris libris, invito Origene admisit.’? — Pauli Epp. ad 
Thess., etc. (Rigae, 1785), Praefatio, sig. b 2. See more fully to the same purpose Redepen- 
ning’s Origenes, ii. 189 ff., who speaks of his ‘* Ausscheidung ganzer Stiicke,’’ and ‘‘ Umge- 
staltung des Heterodoxen in der Trinitatslehre.’? See also Cave, st. Lit., art. ‘‘ Origenes.’’ 


390 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


also remark, “It is difficult to impute Origen’s silence to 
accident in the many places in which quotation would have 
been natural had he followed the common interpretation.” 

Origen should therefore be henceforth excluded from the 
list of Fathers cited in support of the common punctuation. 
It is even “probable,” as Westcott and Hort maintain, 
though “not certain,” that he and Eusebius gave the pas- 
sage a different construction.* 

As regards Eusebius, the presumption is perhaps even 
stronger than in the case of Origen. He has nowhere 
quoted the passage; but in very numerous places in his 
writings he uses ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεός as a title exclusively belong- 
ing to the Father, and insists upon this against the Sabel- 
lians.t I admit that these considerations are not decisive ; 
he and Origen may have given the passage an interpretation 
similar to that of Hippolytus; but, if they understood it to 
relate to Christ, it is certainly strange that they have no- 
where quoted it in their numerous writings. 

The assumption that Irenzus referred the last part of 
this verse to Christ must be regarded as doubtful. The 
only place where he has quoted it is Azer. ili. 16. (al. 18.) 
§ 3, where his text is preserved only in the Old Latin ver- 
sion, which of course cannot -determine the construction 
which Irenzeus put upon the Greek. He does not quote it 
to prove that Christ is θεός,--- the Gnostics gave the name θεός 
to their A®ons, and also to the Demiurgus,— but to prove 
the unity of the C#r/s¢t with the man Jesus, in opposition to 
the Gnostics who maintained that the AZon Christ did not 
descend upon Jesus till his baptism. He had just before 


*I have represented the eminent scholars named above as regarding it as ‘‘ probable though 
not certain’”’ that these Fathers understood the last clause as <elating to God. Their note does 
imply that they are inclined to this view; but subsequent examination leads me to suppose that 
the words quoted were intended to apply to the Apostolic Constitutions and the Pseudo-[Ignatius. 
Westcott and Hort also refer, for the application of the phrase 6 ἐπὶ πάντων θεός to the Father 
in distinction from Christ, to “‘ Melito p. 413 Otto,” z.e., to his Aol. fragm. 2; comp. Routh, 
i. 118, ed. alt. 


+See, for example, De Eccl. Theol. i. 3, 7, 8, 11, 20; ii. 1, 4, 5 (pp. 62 c, 65 a, 66 ο, γο ἃ, 
93 €, 104 a, 107 c, d), and a multitude of other places, some of which are quoted in Wetstein’s 
note. The apparent exception, Hest Acc. viii. 11, τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸν χριστὸν ἐπιβοω- 
μένους (ed. Vales.}, is a false reading: Burton, Schwegler, Laemmer, and Dindorf omit 
χριστόν on the authority of important MSS.; on the other hand Heimichea in his recent edi- 
tion (1868) omits ἐπὶ πάντων θεόν, and reads τὸν γριστόν simply. 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS ΙΧ. 5 391 


(§ 2) quoted Matt. i. 18 for this purpose (reading τοῦ δὲ 
xpicrov) ; he now quotes Rom. i. 3, 4; 1x. 5; and Gal. iv. 
4, 5, for the same purpose. His argument rests on the εξ ov 
ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, and not on the last part of the verse, on 
which he makes no remark. Throughout his work against 
Heresies, and very often, Irenaeus uses the title “the God 
over all” as the exclusive designation of the Father.* 

The passage in which Hippolytus quotes Rom. ix. 5 (Cozz. 
Not. c. 6) has already been noticed. (See above, pp. 378, 
383.) The Noetians and Patripassians, according to him, 
quoted the text to prove the identity of Christ with the 
Father. (/dzd. cc. 2, 3.) He complains that they treat the 
words μονοκώλως (or μονόκωλα) ; comp. Epiph. Azer. lvii. 2. West- 
cott and Hort understand this to mean that they read all 
the words from καὶ ἐξ ὧν to αἰῶνας “as a single clause.” Sem- 
ler once took nearly the same view (Ast. Eznl. zu S. J. 
Baumgarten’s Unters. theol. Strettigketten, 1762, 1. 217, n. 
205), but was afterwards doubtful about it (zdzd. p. 236, n. 
235). Fabricius in his note on the passage, and Salmond 
in his translation of Hippolytus in the Axte-Nicene Christ. 
Library, ix. 53, give a very different explanation. To 
discuss the matter here would require too much space, but 
it seemed well to mention it. Possibly in Cont. NMoét. c. 6 
εὐλογητός is misplaced through the mistake of a scribe, and 
should stand before εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. 

Dean Burgon refers also’ to “ Phil) 230, \ that is to the 
Philosophumena or Ref. omn. Haer. x. 34, ad fin. But ὁ κατὰ 
πάντων θεός there should not, I think, be alleged as a quotation 
of Rom. ix. 5 applied to Christ. Bunsen’s easy emendation 
of the passage (Anal. Ante-Nic. i. 392; comp. his Hzppolytus, 
2d ed., i. 413) seems to me the true reading, and is sup- 
ported by x. 33, ad zuzz. (p. 334), where οὗτος μόνος καὶ κατὰ πάντων 
θεός is distinguished from the Logos. Hippolytus could 
hardly have called Christ ‘zie God over all.” (See p. 378, 
note 1.) 


*Semler (ZA. ad Grieshachium, 1770, p. 77 ff.; Aztwor, etc., 1770, p. 45) and Whitby 
(Disq. modestae, p 125 f.) take the above view of this passage of Irenzeus. For the use of the 
designation ‘“‘ God over all,’’ see Iren. Haer. ii. 5. ὃ 4; 6. (ai, 5.) ὃ ἢ 2,3; 11. (al. 12.) ὃ 1, des; 


many other passages. (CE. iv. 1. § 1.) 


392 ‘CRITICAL ESSAYS 


I note in passing that Tischendorf cites incorrectly for 
the reference of the 6, etc., to Christ “Meth. cmvv 806 
(Gall 3).” The passage referred to is not from the Con- 
vivium, but from the discourse of the Pseudo-Methodius De 
Simcone et Anna, c. 1, ad fin., where we have the mere 
expression τῆς ἀστέκτου δόξης τοῦ ἐπὶ πάντων θεοῦ συγκατάβασιν. This is 
also one of Dean Burgon’s authorities; but, as the writer 
explains himself (c. 2, ad fiz.), he seems to mean by “the 
glory of the God over all” not the glory of the Son consid- 
ered by himself, but the glory of the whole Trinity. There 
is no quotation of Rom. ix. 5 here. 

The passage of Amphilochius (Gallandi vi. 409, or Migne 
Xxxix. 101) which Tischendorf adduces, with a wzdetur, as a 
reference of Rom. ix. 5 to the Father, seems analogous to 
the above, and hardly proves anything on one side or the 
other. 

In the quotation of Rom. ix. 5 in the Antiochene Epistle 
to Paul of Samosata (see above, p. 388) it is probable that 
the six bishops made a slight pause at πάντων. The subordi- 
nation of the Son is very strongly expressed in the Epistle. 
Among other things it is said, “Τὸ think that the God of 
the universe is called a messenger (ἄγγελον) is impious; but 
the Son is the messenger of the Father, being himself Lord 
and God.” (Routh, wt supra, p. 294.) 

The Emperor Julian has already been referred to. (See 
above, p. 346, note.) He was as good a judge of the con- 
struction of a Greek sentence as Cyril of Alexandria, or any 
other of the Fathers, and quite as likely to interpret impar- 
tially. Well acquainted with the writings of the Christians, 
he could hardly have overlooked passages so frequently 
quoted in the controversies on the nature of Christ as Rom. 
ix. 5 and Tit. ii. 13. But he did not find the title θεός given 
to Christ in these or any other places (¢.g., 1 Tim. iii. 16) 
in the writings of Paul. 

Among the orthodox Greek Fathers, Diodorus (of Antioch 
and Tarsus) and Photius appear to have understood the ὁ ὧν, 
etc., to refer to God. The comment of Diodorus on this 
passage is preserved in the important Catena on the Epistle 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS ΙΧ. 5 393 


to the Romans published by Cramer from a MS. in the 
Bodleian Library (Cramer’s Caten@ in NV. T., vol. iv., Oxon. 
1844). The essential part of it reads: καὶ τὸ μέγιστον, ἐξ ὧν ὁ 
χριστὸς, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. ἐξ αὐτῶν, φησὶν, ὁ χριστός. Θεὸς δὲ ov μόνων αὐτῶν, ἀλλὰ 
κοινῇ, ἐπὶ πάντων ἐστὶ Θεός. (p. 162.) This appears to mean, “ From 
them, he says, is the Messiah. But Gop belongs not to 
them alone, but is God over all men alike.” Meyer, Tho- 
luck, Philippi, and Schultz understand it as relating to the 
Father. I do not perceive that this reference is affected by 
the fact that Theodore of Mopsuestia, a pupil of Diodorus, 
who has borrowed much of the language of this comment, 
gives the last part a different turn : kat τὸ 09 μέγιστον, ἐξ αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ 
χριστὺς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὃς ἐστι θεὸς ov μόνον αὐτων,͵ ἀλλὰ κοινῇ πάντων. (Migne, 
Patrol. Gr. \xvi. 833.) Had it been the purpose of Diodorus 
to express this meaning, he would probably have inserted 
ἐστιν after θεὺς δέ, or have written ὃς ἐστιν. The omission of the 
article before θεός creates no difficulty in taking θεός as the 
subject of the sentence. It is often omitted in such a case 
by these later Greek writers.* 

Diodorus, it will be remembered, was the founder of 
a comparatively rational, grammatico-historical, and logical 
school of interpretation, in opposition to the arbitrary exe- 
gesis of Scripture which had prevailed among the Fathers. 

The passage in Photius (Cont. Manich. 111. 14) appears to 
be unequivocal: “He cries with a loud voice,— whose are 
the covenants, and the laws (ai νομοθεσίαι), and the promises, and 
the holy services (ai λατρεῖα!) ; and showing most clearly whence 
these things are and on whose providence they have de- 
pended [he adds], ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. ᾿Αμῆν.᾽" 
“So the laws and the holy services and the promises, in 
the observance of which the fathers pleased God, and from 
whom as to his humanity sprang the Messiah, are from the 
God over all, τοῦ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεοῦ." (Migne, Patrol. Gr. cil. 157.) 

Schultz, in the essay so often referred to (p. 480, note 2). 
says that Theodulus 27: /oc. seems to refer the last part of 


*See, for example, Theodore of Mopsuestia on Rom. ii. 15; viii. 28; ix. το, 14 52s, 22-24, 
25; xi.2. (Migne, ]xvi. coll. 789>, 8328, 8334, 8260, S4ob, δ4ιῷ, 841d, 8528.) See also Cramer, 
p. 11, 1. 303 15, 1. 153 27, eas) 54. 1 22; Εἰα: 


394 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


our verse to God. He misapprehends the meaning of the 
passage in Theodulus, and does not observe that it is taken 
from CEécumenius.* The Euxarratio in Ep. ad Romanos, 
which, in a Latin translation, passes under the name of 
Theodulus, does not belong to the presbyter or bishop in 
Coele-Syria of that name, who died A.D. 492, but is a very 
late Catena. (See Cave.) 

A few words now respecting the Latin Fathers who have 
quoted Rom. ix. 5. 

Tertullian is the first. He quotes it once as below, and 
once (Prax. c. 15) with super omnia before deus.} Cyprian 
simply cites the passage to prove that Christ is deus (quiz 
est super omnia deus bencdictus tn secula), without remark. 
(Testim. ii. 6.) Novatian has already been spoken of. (See 
above, p. 378, note *.) 

I know of no trace of the reference of the last part of the 
verse to God among the Latin writers, except what may be 
implied in the language of the Pseudo-Ambrosius (Ambro- 
siaster), commonly identified with Hilary the deacon, in his 
commentary on the Epistle. He remarks: “Si quis autem 
non putat de Christo dictum, gwz est Deus, det personam de 
qua dictum est. De patre enim Deo hoc loco mentio facta 
non est.” This is repeated in the commentary of Rabanus 
Maurus (Migne, Patro/. Lat. cxi. col. 1482). The same in 
substance appears in the Quaest. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu. ΟἹ, 
formerly ascribed to Augustine, and printed in the Bene- 
dictine edition of his works, Opp. ul. ii. 2915, ed. Bened. 
alt.: ‘Sed forte ad Patris personam pertinere dicatur. Sed 


*See Buiblioth. max. vet. Patrum, viii. 605, or the Monumenta S. Patrum Orthodozx- 
ographa of Grynzus, ii. 1163. 

+ After remarking that he never speaks of Gods or Lords, but following the Apostle, when 
the Father and Son are to be named together, calls the Father God and Jesus Christ Lord, he 
says: ‘‘ Solum autem Christum potero deum dicere, sicut idem apostolus. Ax guibus Christus, 
quiest, inquit, deus super omnia benedictus in aevum omne. Nam et radium solis seorsum 
solem vocabo; solem autem nominans, cuius est radius, non statim et radium solem appellabo.” 
(Prax. c. 13, ed. Oehler.) This accords with his language elsewhere: ‘‘ Protulit deus sermonem 
... sicut radix fruticem, et fons fluvium, et sol radium.’’ (Prax.c. 8.) ‘Cum radius ex sole 
porrigitur, portio ex summa; sed sol erit in radio... nec separatur substantia, sed extenditur.” 
(A pologet. c. 21.) ‘‘ Pater tota substantia est; filius vero derivatio totius et portio; sicut ipse 
profitetur, Ouia pater maior me est.’ (Prax.c.g.) ‘‘ Sermo deus, quia ex deo. ... Quodsi 
deus dei tanquam substantiva res, non erit ipse deus [αὐτόθεος], sed hactenus deus, qua ex 
ipsius substantia, ut portio aliqua totius.”” (Prax. c. 26.) 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 395 


hoc loco nulla est paterni nominis mentio. Ideoque si de 
Christo dictum negatur, persona cui competat detur.”” (This 
work is generally ascribed to the Hilary mentioned above.) 
The writer seems to have heard of those who interpreted 
the passage of God; and, relying apparently upon the Latin 
version, he meets their interpretation of the Greek with a 
very unintelligent objection. 

The Greek Fathers in Mr. Burgon’s list who have not 
already been mentioned are the following: Athanasius, 
Basil, Didymus, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Theodorus 
Mops., Eustathius, Eulogius, Theophilus Alex., Nestorius, 
Theodotus of Ancyra, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Gelasius 
Cyz., Anastasius Ant., Leontius Byz., Maximus. Of the 
Latins, Ambrose, Hilary, Jerome, Victorinus, the Brevia- 
rium, Marius Mercator, Cassian, Alcimus Avit., Fulgentius, 
Ferrandus. 

“Against such a torrent of Patristic testimony,” says Mr. 
Burgon, “it will not surely be pretended that the Socinian 
interpretation, to which our Revisionists give such promi- 
nence, can stand.” 

But to what does it allamount? Simply to the fact that 
a mass of writers, to the judgment of most of whom an 
intelligent scholar would attach very little weight in any 
question of exegesis, have followed that construction of an 
ambiguous passage which suited their theological opinions. 
Out of the whole list, the two, I suppose, who would be 
most generally selected as distinguished from the rest for 
sobriety and good sense in interpretation are Chrysostom 
and Theodoret. Yet both of them adopted that excessively 
unnatural, if not impossible, construction of 2 Cor. iv. 4 of 
which I have spoken above. (See p. 387.) 

The same general considerations apply to the ancient 
versions, some of which are ambiguous here, as Westcott 
and Hort remark, though the translators probably intended 
to have the last part of the verse understood of Christ. 


We will now dismiss the Fathers, and notice some facts 
belonging to the more recent history of the interpretation of 


396 _ CRITICAL ESSAYS 


our passage.* I take up the different constructions in the 
order in which they are numbered above, p. 335. 

The three most important recent discussions of the pas- 
sage outside of the commentaries, before that of Dr. Dwight, 
are by Dr. Hermann Schultz, in the /ahrbiicher f. deutsche 
Theol., 1868, pp. 462-506, who defends constructions Nos. 
I—3, with a slight preference for, No.1 (ρ 182): Wr Ge 
Wilibald Grimm, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeztschr. fi. wiss. Theol, 
1869, pp. 311-322, who adopts No. 5; and Pastor Ernst 
Harmsen, z0zd:, 1872, pp. 510-521, who adopts No. 7: 
There is a brief discussion of the passage by Dr. G. Vance 
Smith, Canon Farrar, and Dr. Sanday, in the Exfosztor for 
May, 1879, ix. 397-405, and September, 18709, x. 232-238. 
There was a more extended debate in the /zdependent (New 
York), for Aug: 12, Oct. 14; 21,-28, and Nov. εὖ; Teyana 
which Dr. John Proudfit (anonymously), the Rev. Joseph 
P, Thompson: (the editor), Dr: Z. S: Barstow, and ΡΝ 
took part. 

1-3. It would be idle to give a list of the supporters of 
Nos. 1-3, who refer the clause in question to Christ. Among 
the commentators, perhaps the more eminent and best known 
are Calvin, Beza, Hammond, LeClerc, Limborch, Bengel, 
Michaelis, Koppe, Flatt, Tholuck, Olshausen, Stuart, Hodge, 
Philippi, Lange (with Schaff and Riddle), Hofmann, Weiss, 
Godet, Alford, Vaughan, Sanday (very doubtfully), Gifford. 
That the Roman Catholic commentators, as Estius, Klee, 
Stengel, Reithmayr, Maier, Beelen, Bisping (not very posi- 
tively), Jatho, Klofutar (1880), should adopt this explana- 
tion, is almost a matter of course. This construction of 
the verse is accepted by all the /ratres Poloni, who did not 
hesitate to give the name God to Christ, and to worship 
him, recognizing of course the supremacy of the Father, to 
whom they applied the name God in a higher sense; so 


* Literature.— The older literature is given by Wolf (Curae) and Lilienthal (8zddischer 
Archivartius, 1745). For the more recent, see Danz, and especially Schultz in the article so 
often referred to; also, among the commentators, Meyer and Van Hengel. E. F. C. Oertel 
(Christologie, Hamb. 1792, p. 216 ff.) gives a brief account of the controversy excited by Semler 
(1769-71); see also the works named by Schultz, especially Hirt’s Ordent. u. exeg. Bibliothek, 
1772, 1773. The name Bremer (Schultz, p. 462, note 2) is a misprint for Benner. 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS ΙΧ. 5 397 


Poemus, Opp. ii:'581, 502, Good jel, 1: 377 f.; John Crell, 
771 loc. Opp. i. 147; also Respous. ad Grotium, Opp. iv. 230 Ὁ; 
De Uno Deo Patre, ἢ. 23a; De Deo ejusque Attrib. p. 35 Ὁ; 
Eth. Christ. p. 348 a; Schlichting (Zaz. Slichtingius), Come. 
Bese. 254; Wolzogen, Opp. i, 710, 712; 1, 301} ii, 5; Sam. 
Przipcovius or Przpkowsky zz loc., p. 51. So also the Raco- 
vian Catechism, §§ 159, 160. 

With a singular disregard of these historical facts, Dean 
Burgon holds up his hands in holy horror at the marginal 
renderings of the Revised New Testament at Rom. ix. 5, 
ascribed to ‘some modern Interpreters,” and stigmatizes 
them as “276 Socinian gloss”! (Quart. Rev., Jan., 1882, 
p. 54 |Reviston Revised, p. 211].) The Italics are his. He 
seems throughout his article to imagine himself to be writ- 
ing for readers who will take an opprobrious epithet for an 
argument. The real ‘‘Socinian gloss” is adopted, and the 
arguments for it are repeated, as we have seen, by the latest 
prominent defender of the construction which Mr. Burgon 
himself maintains. Among English commentators, compare 
Macknight on the passage. 

A. slight qualification or supplement of the above state- 
ment is, however, required. Schlichting, though he does 
not object to the common construction, misled by Erasmus, 
is inclined to suspect the genuineness of the word θεός, It is 
important, in reference to the history of the interpretation 
of this passage, to observe that the statement of Erasmus, 
in regard to the omission of this word in the quotations 
by some of the Fathers, led many astray; among others, 
Grotius, who also incorrectly represents the word God as 
wanting in the Syriac version. Schoettgen misrepresented 
the case still worse, saying, by mistake of course, “ Hoc 
verbum quamplurimi Codices, quidam etiam ex Patribus, non 
habent.” 


* Socinus speaks of the punctuation and construction proposed by Erasmus, a believer in the 
deity of Christ, which makes the ὁ ὦν, etc., a doxology to God, the Father, and says: ‘‘ Non est 
ulla causa, cur haec interpretatio, vel potius lectio et interpunctio Erasmi rejici posse videatur; 
nisi una tantum, quam Adversarii non afferunt; neque enim illam animadverterunt. Ea est, 
quod, cum simplex nomen Benedictus idem significat quod Benedictus sit, semper fere solet ante- 
poni ei, ad quem refertur, perraro autem postponi.”’ 

Some of those who are so shocked at what they call ‘‘ Socinian glosses’’ might perhaps learn 
a lesson of candor and fairness from this heretic. 


398 - CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Schlichting also suggests, as what “venire alicui in 
mentem posset,”’ the somewhat famous conjecture of ὧν ὁ for 
ὁ ὦν, but vefects it. It was taken up afterwards, however, by 
a man far inferior in judgment, Samuel Crell (not to be con- 
founded with the eminent commentator), in the Juztzum Ev. 
S. Joannis restitutum (1726), published under the pseu- 
donym of L. M. Artemonius. Its superficial plausibility 
seems to have fascinated many; among them Whitby (Last _ 
Thoughts), Jackson of Leicester (Axnot. ad Novat. p. 341), 
John Taylor of Norwich, Goadby, Wakefield (Ezquzry), 
Bishop Edmund Law (Wakefield’s Memoirs, i. 447), Bel- 
sham (Epistles of Paul), John Jones, and David Schulz (so 
says Baumgarten-Crusius). Even Doddridge and Harwood 
speak of it as ‘ingenious,’ and Olshausen calls it “ scharf- 
sinnig.” It is quite indefensible. 

Among the writers on Biblical Theology, Usteri (Paudzn. 
Lehrbegr., 5te Ausg., 1834, p. 324 f.) refers the clause in 
question to Christ, but strongly expresses his sense of the 
great difficulties which this involves. He is influenced es- 
pecially by Riickert (1831), who afterwards changed his 
mind. Messner (1856, p. 236 f.) regards this reference as 
probable, though not certain; somewhat more doubtful is 
G. Ff, Sehmid 126. ed., 1850, p. 540 τῷ or Dp. 475 deo 
trans.). Dorner in his recent work, System der Christl. 
Glaubenslehre (1879), 1. 345, only ventures to say that the 
reference to Christ is “the most natural.” Schott, August 
Hahn, De Wette, Reuss, Ritschl, are sometimes cited as 
supporting this construction; but later they all went over 
to the other side. See below, under No. 7. 

For the most elaborate defences of the construction we 
are considering, besides those which have already been men- 
tioned, one may consult Dr. John Pye Smith’s Scripture 
Testimony to the Messiah, 5th ed. (1859), vol. 11. pp. 370- 
377, 401-405, and the commentaries of Flatt (from whom 
Professor Stuart has borrowed largely) and Philippi. 

4. Construction No. 4 has already been sufficiently no- 
jced, (oee above, p. 333.) 

5. The construction which puts a colon or a period after 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 399 


πάντων͵ making the clause beginning with θεός a doxology to 
God, seems to have been first suggested by Erasmus in 
the Annotations to his third edition of the Greek Testament 
(1522), repeated in the fourth (1527). In his later writings, 
and in the note in his last edition (1535), while recognizing 
the possibility of this construction, he gave the preference 
to No. 7.* It was adopted by Locke in his posthumous 
Paraphrase, etc. (London, 1705, and often): “and of them, as 
to his fleshly extraction, Christ is come, he who is over all, 
God be blessed for ever, Amen.” Locke’s construction was 
preferred by Wetstein in the important note on the passage 
in his Greek Testament, vol. 11. (1752), and was adopted by 
Prof. L. J. C. Justi in Paulus’s Memorabilien, 1791, St. 1. 
pp. 1-26, treated more fully in his Vermischte Abhandlungen, 
ate Sammil., 1708; pp: 3090-3463 also. by Β' F. ©. Oertel, 
Christologie (1792), p. 209 f. He has a pretty full discussion 
of the passage (pp. 195-218). So by G. L. Bauer, Bzd/. 
tice), des N. T., ΒΘ ἵν {{899}. pp, Τ0Ξ- 1. and by C. RB: 
Ammon; for though in his 9.204, Theol., 2te Ausg. (1801), 
pp. 220-222, he does not decide between constructions No. 
5 and No. 7, he favors the former in his note on the passage 
in the third edition of Koppe on Romans (1824). J. J. Stolz 
adopts it in the fourth edition of his Uebersetzung des N. T. 
(1804), and the third edition of his Er/a@uterungen (1808), iil. 
170-191. He gives there an interesting extract from Sem- 
ler’s Hist. u. krit. Sammlungen iiber die sogenannten Bewets- 
stellen in der Dogmatik, St. ii. pp. 284-287. So De Wette 
in the text of the third edition of his German translation 
of the Bible (1839), though he gives constructions Nos. 1 
and 7 as alternative renderings; in the note in the fourth 
and last edition of his commentary on the Epistle (1847), 
though undecided, he seems on the whole rather inclined 
to No. 7. This construction (No. 5) is supported also by 
Baumgarten-Crusius, a scholar to be spoken of with high 
respect, in his Comm. on the Epistle (Jena, 1844), comp. his 
Grundsziige der bibl. Theol. (1828), p. 385 f., and his χερί. 
Schriften sum N. T. τι. i. (Jena, 1844) p. 266, the latter cited 


* Erasmi Opp., Lugd. Bat. 1703, ff., vol. vi. 610 f. 3 ix. 1002 f., 1045 f. 


400 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


by Ernesti. So by Schumann in his Chrestus (1852), ii. 545, 
note; H. Fr. Th. L. Ernesti, Vom Ursprunge d. Siinde nach 
paulin. Lehrgehalte, i. (1855) pp. 197-204; Marcker (cited by 
Meyer), whose work I have not seen; and Reuss, Les Epitres 
Pauliniennes (1878), 11. 88. 

The best defence of this view, perhaps, is to be found in 
the article of Grimm, referred to above. 

6. On construction No. 6, see above, p. 385 f. 

7. Erasmus in his ¢vans/ation renders the words of the 
last part of our verse thus: “et ii, ex quibus est Christus 
quantum attinet ad carnem, qui est in omnibus deus lau- 
dandus in secula, amen.” His paraphrase seems a little am- 
biguous.* But in the note in his last edition (1535), and 
in his later writings, he clearly indicates his preference for 
construction No. γ.7ἢ Bucer (or Butzer) zz doc. (1536 3), as 
quoted by Wetstein, suggests this construction as an alter- 
native rendering. Curcellzeus (Courcelles) in his edition of 
the Greek Testament published in 1658 (also 1675, 1685, 
1699) notes that “ Quidam addunt punctum post vocem σάρκα. 
quia si id quod sequitur cum praecedentibus connecteretur, 
potius dicendum videatur ὃς ἐστι, vel és ὧν, quam ὁ ὧν.» 

Among those who have adopted or favored this construc- 
tion are Whiston, in his Primitive Christianity Reviv'd, vol. 
iv. (1711), p. 13 ff.; and Dr. Samuel Clarke, in his Scr7pture 
Doctrine of the Trinity, London, 1712, 3d ed., 1732, p. 85 ff. 
He gives also as admissible constructions No. 5 and No. 2, 
but places No. 7 first. He was, as is well known, one of 
the best classical scholars of his day, as well as one of the 
ablest metaphysicians and theologians. So John Jackson 
of Leicester, in his Aznot. ad Novatianum (1726), p. 341, 


* At Christus sic est homo, ut idem et Deus sit, non huius aut illius gentis peculiaris, sed 
universorum Deus, et idem cum patre Deus, qui (Christus? pater? ox Pater cum Christo ?] prae- 
sidet omnibus, cuiusque inscrutabili consilio geruntur haec omnia, cui soli. . . debetur jaus,”’ etc. 
One suggestion of Erasmus 1s that the word “God”? in the last clause may denote the whole 
Trinity. 

+ See especially his A fol. adv. monachos quosdam Hispanos (written in 1528), Opp. ix. 1043- 
47: “Egocoram Deo profiteor mihi videri Paz/wm hoc sensisse, quod modo significavimus, nec 
hunc sermonem proprie ad Christum pertinere, sed vel ad Patrem, vel ad totam Trinitatem ”’ 
(col. 1045). Comp. Resp. ad Juvenem Gerontodidascalum (written 1532), col. 1002: “ipsa res 
loquitur, verba Pauli nullum sensum evidentius reddere quam hunc: Deus, gud est super σα 
sit benedictus in secula. Cui precationi accinitur, A szex.’? See also above, under No. 5. = 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 401 


though captivated by the specious but worthless conjecture 
of ὧν ὁ; Wetstein, as an alternative rendering, but rather pre- 
ferring to place the stop after πάντων (see the end of his 
note) ; Semler, Paraph. Ep. ad Rom. (1769), p. 114 ff., and 
in many other writings; on the literature of the Semler con- 
troversy, see the references given above, p. 390n. Semler 
was not so well acquainted with the writings of the later as 
with those of the earlier Fathers, and in this part of the 
field of debate his adversaries had the advantage. But he 
gave a stimulus to a freer and more impartial treatment of 
the question. Eckermann adopted the construction we are 
now considering in the second edition (1795) of his Theolo- 
gische Beytrige, Bd. 1. St. ili. pp. 160-162, though in the 
first edition he had opposed it. 

Coming now to the present century, we find this construc- 
tion adopted by the commentaturs C. F. Boehme (Lips. 
1806), and H. E. G. Paulus, Des Apostels Paulus Lehr-Briefe 
an die Galater- und Romer-Christen (Heidelb. 1831), where 
he translates (p. 102): ‘‘ Der tiber alle (Juden und Heiden) 
seyende Gott sey gepriesen auf (alle) die Zeitalter hinaus” ; 
by Professor J. F. Winzer of Leipzig in a Programma on 
Rom. ix. 1-5 (Lips. 1832), which I have not seen, but find 
highly praised; and Karl Schrader, Der Apostel Paulus, 
Mien in: (1333), p75, and Vheilives(@835), p» 355. (He 
translates, ‘‘Der iiber Allem Seiende (der welcher iiber 
Allem ist,) Gott, gelobt (sei gelobt) in Ewigkeit!” It is 
adopted in three commentaries of remarkable independence 
and ability which appeared in 1834, namely: those of Pro- 
fessor J. G. Reiche of Gottingen, whose note (Theil ii. pp. 
268-278) is one of the fullest and best discussions of the 
passage, though he makes some mistakes about the Fathers; 
Professor Eduard Koellner of Gottingen; and Dr. Conrad 
Glockler, whom Professor Stuart calls ‘a Nicenian’’ as re- 
gards his theolosical position. K. G. Bretschneider, in the 
fourth edition of his Handbuch der Dogmatik (1838), i. 604 f., 
adopts the same construction, though in the earlier editions 
of this work he had referred the θεός to Christ. He trans- 
lates: “Der Herr iiber alles, Gott, sei gepriesen in Ewig- 


402 ~ CRITICAL ESSAYS 


keit.” In 1830, Professor L. J. Riickert of Jena, in the 
second edition of his elaborate and valuable commentary 
(vol. ii. pp. 13-17), discusses the passage fully, and though 
in the first edition (1831) he had strenuously contended for 
the reference of the last part of the verse to Christ, now 
pronounces the construction which makes it a doxology to 
God “far more probable.” This year is also signalized in 
the history of the interpretation of our passage by the pub- 
lication of vol. ii. of the commentary of Professor C. F. A. 
Fritzsche of Rostock, who discusses the passage in a mas- 
‘terly manner (pp. 260-275). His translation has been given 
above, p. 354. In the fourth edition of his Greek Testament 
with a Latin version, published in 1839, Professor H. A. 
Schott of Jena adopted the punctuation and construction 
which make the clause beginning with ὁ ὧν a doxology to 
God, though in previous editions he had followed the com- 
mon construction. In his essay De Juvocatione Jesu Christi 
Partic. 1. (1843), p. 8, the highly esteemed commentator Dr. 
Friedrich Liicke, Professor at Gdttingen, refers the last part 
of our verse to God. Professor A. L. G. Krehl, of Leipzig, 
does the same in his Der Brief an die Rimer ausgelegt, 
u. 5. w. (1845), p. 322, though in an earlier work, /Veuztes?. 
Handwirterbuch (1843), art. Christus, p. 114, he had cited 
Rom. ix. 5 in proof that Christ is called God. 

Baur, who makes the passage a doxology to God, has 
some valuable remarks upon it in his Paw/us (1845), p. 624 
f., 2te Aufl. (1866-67), ii. 263 f.; comp. his Lehre von der 
Drewinigkeit (1841), 1. 84, note, and Meutest. Theol. (1864), 
p. 194. Zeller agrees with him (Theol. Jahrbiicher, 1842, 
p. 55). So J. F. Rabiger, a believer in the divine nature of 
Christ, in his De Christologia Paulina contra Baurium Com- 
mentatio (1852), pp. 26-28. . 

We may notice here the great commentators De Wette 
and Meyer. De Wette, not perfectly satisfied with any 
view, yet wavers between constructions Nos. 5 and 7; see 
above under No. 5. In his 42b/. Dogmatzk, 316 Aufl. (1831), 
p. 249, and in the second edition of his translation of the 
New Testament (1832), he had taken the name “God” here 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 403 


as a designation of Christ; but in the third edition of his 
translation (1839) he makes it begin a doxology. Meyer in 
his Das N. T. griechisch mit einer neuen deutschen Uebersetz- 
wng (1829) followed the common construction; but in the 
first edition of his Comm. (1836), and all later editions, he 
makes the passage a doxology to God. His collaborator, 
Huther, maintains in his note on Titus ii. 13 that the name 
θεός is not given to Christ in any of the New Testament 
Epistles. 

In 1855 appeared the first edition of Jowett’s work on 
four of the Epistles of Paul (2d ed., 1859).. He translates: 
“God, who is over all, is blessed for ever. Amen.’ So 
Bishop Colenso, St. Paul’s Ep. to the Romans, etc., London, 
1861; Am. ed., New York, 1863. 

Ewald, Die Sendschretben des Ap. Paulus, u. 5. w. (1857), 
translates: ‘der iiber allen ist Gott sei gelobet in die ewig- 
Ketten, amen!) (p,/323 3 comp, pe 308 ἢ) See: also his Me 
Lehre der Bibel von Gott, Bd. iii. (1874), p. 416, n. 2. Pro- 
fessor J. H. Scholten of Leyden, in his Dogmatices Christ. 
Initia, ed. 2da, Lugd. Bat. 1858, p. 193 f., adopts the same 
construction. So Athanase Coquerel, Christologie (Paris, 
1858), i. 76, note. So the celebrated Dutch commentator, 
Van Hengel, who in tome il. of his /zterpretatio (1859), pp. 
343-300, discusses the passage very fully. He mentions 
some Dutch scholars that agree with him, as Vissering and 
Scheffer (Godgel. Bijdragen 1853 and 1854), whose writings 
I have not seen. The eminent Danish commentator, Dr. 
H. N. Clausen, Pauli Brev til Romerne fortolket (Copen- 
hagen, 1863), p. 124, translates: “Han som er over Alt, 
Gud, (eller, “Gud, som er over Alt’)-vzere priset 1 Ev- 
ighed!” (He is the author of the Hermeneutizk. The Ger- 
mans spell his name Klausen.) Holtzmann, in his transla- 
tion of the Epistle in Bunsen’s Azbelwerk (1864), vol. iv., 
gives the same construction to the passage; and so Profes- 
sor Willibald Beyschlag of Halle, in his Christologie des 
7 Berlin, § VS60,).19.,. 20004. 

Professor R. A. Lipsius of Jena, in the Protestanten-Brbel 
Neuen Testamentes (1872-73), p. 572, translates: “ Der da 


404 ~ CRITICAL ESSAYS 


ist iiber Alles, Gott, sei gelobt in Ewigkeit”; Volkmar, 
Romerbrief (Ziirich, 1875), Ὁ. 32: “Der iiber Allen seiende 
Gott sei gelobt in Ewigkeit!” His comment is (p. 97): 
“Der Gott, der iiber alex (Volkern) waltet, sei dafiir ge- 
priesen, dass er aus Israel den Heiland (fiir Alle) hervor- 
gehen 1655. The Rev. John H. Godwin, ‘Hon. Prof. 
New Coll., Lond.,” and Congregational Lecturer, translates, 
“God who is over all be praised for ever. Amen,” and 
has a good note. (Ep. to Rom., London, 1873.) Professor 
Lewis Campbell, the editor of Sophocles, in the Contempo- 
rary Review for August, 1876, p. 484, adopts the rendering 
of Professor Jowett. The Rev. Joseph Agar Beet, Wesleyan 
Methodist, in a Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans 
of very marked ability (London, 1877, 2d ed., 1881), defends 
this view in an excellent note (pp. 267-272, 2d ed.). The 
same construction is followed in Herm. Bartels’s Exveget. 
Uebersetzung des Briefes, etc. (Dessau, 1878), which I men- 
tion because Professor Woldemar Schmidt of Leipzig, in a 
notice of the book (7heol. Literaturzettung, 1879, No. 22), 
expresses his approval of this. C. Holsten, in an article in 
the Jahrbiicher f. prot. Theol., 1879, p. 683, translates: “ Der 
iiber allen Volkern waltende Gott (der doch Israels Volk so 
begnadet hat) sei gepriesen in Ewigkeit!”’ 

Some of the best recent ¢vazslations adopt this construc- 
tion of the passage; eg. Het Nieuwe Testament, etc. (pub- 
lished by the authority of the General Synod of the Dutch 
Reformed Church), Amsterdam, 1868: “ Hij, die over alles 
is, God, zij geprezen tot in eeuwigheid!”’ and the versions 
by Dr. George R. Noyes (Boston, 1869), Hugues Oltramare 
(Geneve, 1872), “Que celui qui gouverne toutes choses, 
Dieu, en soit béni éternellement!’’ Carl Weizsacker, Das 
NV. T. uebersetst, Tiibingen, 1875, and Dr. Samuel Davidson, 
‘London, 1875, 2d ed. 1876. 

No one who knew the scholarship and the impartiality of 
the late Dr. Noyes will wonder that I have cited him here. 
A dispassionate, judicial spirit in the examination of such 
questions as the one before us is not the exclusive posses- 
sion of the Dean of Chichester and of “the Church” in 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 405 


distinction from ‘“‘the Sects,’ though there are many noble 
examples of it in the Church of England. 

Among critical edztors of the Greek Testament who have 
placed a period after σάρκα, making the passage a doxology to 
God, I may mention Harwood (1776), Lachmann (1831-50), 
Schott (4th ed., 1839), Tischendorf (1841-73), Muralt (1846- 
48), Buttmann (1856-67), Aug. Hahn, assisted by his son 
G. L. Hahn (1861), Kuenen and Cobet (1861), and Westcott 
and Hort (1881) in their margin, representing the judgment 
on Wr, Hort: 

To these authorities may be added the names of the gram- 
marians Winer and Wilke. See Winer, Gram., 7te Aufl, 
ΘΟ oe" OL, 3) δ᾽, and 64, 2, bs pp: 517. 5715: ὉΓ 55h 1500 
Thayer, 690, 733 Moulton; and Wilke, Hermeneutik (1844), 
ii, 88. 

It is worthy of notice that many scholars who had already 
in their publications adopted or even strongly contended 
for the common construction of this passage, afterwards 
saw reason to change their minds. Such was the case 
with Eckermann, De Wette, Meyer, Riickert, Bretschneider, 
Schott, Krehl, Hahn (perhaps both father and son); and it 
is so with Ritschl, as I am assured by a very intelligent 
student (the Rev. Alfred Gooding), who took full notes. of 
his exegetical lectures on Romans in the semester of 1879- 
80. I know of only one instance of a conversion in the 
opposite direction, that of Dr. G. V. Lechler, who, in the 
first edition of his Das apost. τ. das nachapost. Zeitalter 
(1851), pp. 38, 39, made the last part of the verse a doxology 
to God, but in the second edition (1857), p. 63 f. [and 3d 
ed. (1886), Eng. trans., vol. ii. p. 27 f.1, applies it to Christ. 
He expressly admits, however, as regards the two opposing 
views, that “sprachlich und logisch sind beide gleichbe- 
rechtigt.” 


“The awful blindness and obstinacy of Arians and Socin- 
ians in their perversions of this passage,’ says the Scotch 
commentator Haldane, “ more fully manifest the depravity 
of human nature, and the rooted enmity of the carnal mind 


406 _CRITICAL ESSAYS 


against God, than the grossest works of the flesh.” * ‘“ The 
dishonest shifts,” says Dean Burgon, “ by which unbelievers 
seek to evacuate the record which they are powerless to 
refute or deny, are paraded by our Revisionists in the 
following terms.” ὦ (Here Mr. Burgon quotes the margin 
of the Revised Version at Rom. ix. 5, regarding these render- 
ings as “not entitled to notice in the margin of the N. T.,” 
and their admission as “ἃ very grave offence.”) Σὺ τίς εἰ, ὁ 
κρίνων ἀλλότριον οἰκέτην, ὁ κατήγωρ TOV ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν. (Rom. XIV. AG Rev. 
ἘΠῚ ΤΟ) 

In contrast with these utterances, not addressed to the 
reason of men, and not adapted to promote Christian charity 
or Christian humility, it is refreshing to read a discussion 
so-calm, so clear, so fair, and so able as that of Professor 
Dwight. 


NOTE A. (See p. 346.) 
On the Punctuation of Rom. ix. 5 in Ancient MSS. 


In regard to the punctuation of this passage in ancient MSS., though 
the matter is in itself of little importance, it may be well to correct 
some current errors, especially as the supposed absence of a point 
after σάρκα in the MSS. has been urged as an objection to the construc- 
tion which makes the ὁ ὦν, x. τ. Δ. a doxology to God. For example, 
Dr. Gifford, the latest commentator, speaks of the stop after σάρκα as 
found simply “in two or three inferior MSS.”; while Mr. Burgon, in 
the Quarterly Review for January, 1882, says “ the oldest codices, besides 
the whole body of the cursives [the Italics are his], know nothing about 
the method of ‘some modern Interpreters’” (referring to the margin of 
the Revised Version); and he remarks in a note, “‘C alone has a point 
between ὁ dv ἐπὶ πάντων and Oedc¢ εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. But this is an 
entirely different thing from what is noted in the margin.” (p. 54.) 

The facts of the case do not accord with these statements. In the 
first place, C, according to Tischendorf’s very careful edition of this 
MS. (Lips. 1843), has no point after πάντων, and there can be little 
doubt that such a stop exists only in Mr. Burgon’s very lively imagina- 
tion; it does have, on the other hand, as Tischendorf’s edition shows, 
both a point and a space after σάρκα, unquestionably a prima manu. 
The Alexandrian MS. (A) has also a point after σάρκα, as appears by 
Woide’s edition (1786), by the recent photograph published by the 


* Exposition of the Ep. to the Romans, Am. reprint of the fifth Edinburgh edition, p. 454. 


+ The Quarterly Review for January, 1882, p. 54 [see The Reviston Revised, p. 211]; see 
also the same for April, 1882, p. 370 [The Revision Revised, p. 353 1.1. 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS IX. 5 407 


British Museum (1879), and by the express testimony of Dr. Vance 
Smith and of Dr. Sanday, who says, “The point is clearly marked, and 
it is evidently by the first hand.” (Zhe Exposztor, Sept., 1879, x. 235.) 
This fact has been overlooked both by Tischendorf and by Westcott 
and Hort. There is, moreover, a point after σάρκα in the Vatican 
MS. (B), which, though it does not appear in the Roman edition, is 
amply attested by Dr. Vance Smith from personal inspection (7he Ex- 
positor, May, 1879, ix. 399, comp. his Zhe Spirit and the Word of 
Christ, London, 1874, p. 138), and by others. This point also, from the 
description of it, seems to be probably by the first hand, though more 
careful examination and comparison may be required to settle the ques- 
tion.* The Clermont MS. (D) ends a stichometric line at σάρκα, but 
this does not determine the construction of what follows. The Sinaitic 
MS. has only a single point (after ovrwc, Rom. ix. 20) in the whole page 
containing the passage, 4 cols. of 48 lines each, from Rom. viii. 38 
oure ἐνεστωτα to ayvoouvrec, x. 3, inclusive. It is therefore neutral. The 
same is true for a different reason of F and G, in which the numerous 
points are distributed in the most arbitrary manner, so that, although 
they each have a point after σάρκα, it counts for nothing. We have no 
report of K, collated by Matthaei, who does not record the punctuation 
of MSS. L, the remaining uncial, has a point after σάρκα according to 
Tischendorf. There is no break between ον and ayy in A, B, C. 

As to the cursive MSS., their punctuation has been very rarely 
noted by collators. The sweeping statement of Mr. Burgon is made 


* The facts as to the Vatican MS. are these. Tischendorf, who has given the most careful 
attention to its palzography, states that ‘‘ipsam primam manum passim, in nonnullis libris haud 
raro interpunxisse, sine ulla dubitatione asseverandum est.” (V. 7. Vat. p. xx.; comp. p. xxi.) 
The later hand, of the tenth or eleventh century, has but rarely supplied points. (76 4.) The 
original scribe indicates a pause, sometimes by a small space simply; sometimes by such a space 
with a point, and sometimes by a point with a very small space between the letters or none at all. 
Of the latter there are two unquestionable examples by the first hand in Tischendorf’s fac-similes, 
made from parts of the MS. which, having been accidentally repeated, were wholly untouched by 
the corrector and freshener of the ink; namely, after the word οφειλημα in Rom. iv. 4 (cod. 
p. 1448), where there is no space, and after κείται in 2 Cor. iil. 15 (cod. p. 1479), where the space 
is exceedingly small. Tischendorf was unable to, examine carefully the punctuation of the MS. 
beyond the end of the Gospel of Luke, but he observed that punctuation was much more frequent 
in the Epistles than in the Gospels. I notice that in the Roman edition there are twelve points 
on the page (p. 1453) that contains Rom. ix. 5, extending from Rom. vili. 23 (exov)re¢ to μηπὼω 
yap, ix. rz, inclusive. There is no extra space after σάρκα, but perhaps that does not diminish 
the probability that the point is by the first hand. There is no extra space, as we have seen, after 
οφειλημα in Rom. iv. 4; and Tischendorf observes (Vov. Test. Sin. p. xix.) that there are 
points with no space in the Sinaitic MS. after the words πονηρία" κακία" πλεονεξία" Rom. 
i. 29. On the page of B (1453) which contains Rom. ix. 5 there is no extra space in the printed 
edition with the point after απεκδεχομεθα, col. 1,1. 12, or after τέκνα, col. 3,1. 28. It will be 
observed that all the words which hive been mentioned end with the letter A, which on account 
of its peculiar form in the uncial MSS. did not need any extra space for the insertion of a point 
after it at the top of the line, the shape of the letter necessarily leaving a space there. But the 
absence of extra space after the letter would render it less likely that the late corrector would 
insert a point after it. 

It is expressly stated by a gentleman who recently examined the MS., and whose letter from 
Rome I have been permitted to see, that the point after σάρκα “is of lighter color than the 


408 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


entirely at random. But a point after σάρκα is found in at least six 
cursives, namely: No. 5 (collated by Scholz), 47 (by Griesbach), 71, 
77, 80, and 89g (by Birch); also in the beautiful Greek Praxapostolos or 
Lectionary of the twelfth century belonging to the Library of Harvard 
College (pp. 150, 151), and the fine Lectionary in the Astor Library 
(p. 117), assigned to the eleventh century (?), formerly in the possession 
of the Duke of Sussex. In the Harvard Lectionary there is also a 
point after θεός, which is not the case in the Astor Library MS.* A 
point has also been noted after θεός in 17 (Griesb.), and after πάντων in 
71 (Birch).t 

Incorrect statements are often made in regard to the extreme rarity 
of punctuation in our oldest New Testament MSS. I therefore note 
the fact that, on the page of the Alexandrian MS. (A) which contains 
our passage, extending from Rom. viii. 21 adda dia τὸν ὑποταξαντα to 
προθεσις του θυ μὲν... ix. 11, there are sixty-four points in Woide’s 
edition; in the Ephraem MS. (C) from Rom. viii. 27 0 de epevven to ἀμὴν 
ix. 5 in Tischendorf’s edition there are forty-five points; for B see 
above. In the three pages of Paul’s Epistles in B published by Tisch- 
endorf line for line in his Appendix codd. celeb. Sin. Vat. Alex. (1867), 
p- 1445 (Rom. i. 1-26) has fifteen points which he regards as a prima 
manu, p. 1460 (Rom. xv. 24-xvi. 17) has thirty-five; p. 1506 (Col. 
iv. 8-1, Thess. i. 8), with more than half a column blank, has seven- 
teen. These pages, however, were selected partly on account of their 
exceptional frequency of punctuation. 

The truth is that this whole matter of punctuation in the ancient 
MSS. is of exceedingly small importance, which might be shown more 
fully, had not this paper already extended to an excessive length. In 
the first place, we cannot infer with confidence the construction given 
to the passage by the punctuator, the distribution of points even in the 
oldest MSS. is so abnormal; in the second place, if we could, to how 
much would his authority amount? 

All that I have argued from the point after σάρκα in A, B, C, L, εἴα.» 
is that a pause after that word was felt by ancient scribes to be natural. 


adjoining letters,’’ and that it was certainly much fainter than a point in the space after ημων 
on the same page, ‘‘ which was as black as the touched letters.”’ 

Since the above was printed, the point after σάρκα has been very carefully examined by 
Professor Ubaido Ubaldi, of the Collegio Romano, and Father Cozza, one of the editors of the 
Vatican MS. They compared it, at my suggestion, with the twelve points represented in the 
printed edition of the MS. on the same page (1453), and aiso with the points, unquestionably 
α prima manu, after opevAnua, Rom. iv. 4, and after κείται, 2 Cor. iii. 15. The result is that 
the point after σάρκα is undoubtedly by the first hand, the pale ink of the original being only 
partially covered, as in other cases on the same page, by the black ink of the late scribe who 
retouched the ancient writing throughout the MS. 


* For a careful copy of that part of the Astor Library MS. which contains Rom. ix. 4, 5, 
I am indebted to the kindness of the Rev. S. M. Jackson. 


+ It may be added, that out of six cursive MSS. examined for me by Dr. C. R. Gregory, viz., 
Brit. Mus. Add. 5116, 7142, 11837, 17469, Curzon γι. 6, and Act. 20 (Paul. 25), all but the last 
have a colon after σάρκα, and the last MS. is almost illegibie in this place. [See p. 432 below.] 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMANS ΙΧ. 5 409 


NORE ΕΒ. (Seep. 363.) 
On the Distinction between εὐλογητός and εὐλογημένος. 


The distinction between εὐλογητός and εὐλογημένος is dwelt upon by 
Philo, De Migr. Abrah. c. το, Opp. i. 453, in his remarks on Gen. xii. 2. 
The former word, according to him, describes one who by nature or 
character is worthy of praise or blessing, εὐλογίας ἄξιος; the latter, one 
who is in fact praised or blessed, whether rightfully or otherwise. In 
other words, εὐλογητός, in doxologies, would be /audandus or laude 
dignus ; εὐλογημένος laudatus. So Theodore of Mopsuestia on Eph. i. 
3 explains εὐλογητός as τοῦ ἐπαινεῖσθαι Kai θαυμάζεσθαι ἄξιος. (Migne, Patrol. 
Gr. Ixvi. 912.) It is true that in classical Greek verbals in -réc, like 
the Latin participles in -¢ws, have generally a simply passive significa- 
tion; but we find exceptions, particularly in the later Greek, and espe- 
cially in the case of words analogous in’ meaning to εὐλογητός. See in 
the Lexicons αἰνετός, ἐπαινετός, ὑπεραινετός, ἐγκωμιαστός͵ ζηλωτός, θαυμαστός, 
μακαριστός (2 Macc. vii. 24), μεμπτός, ψεκτός, μισητός, στυγητός, ὑμνητός, ὑπε- 
ρυμνητός. On ἐπαινετός and ψεκτός, see Philo, μόξζ supra. (See also 
Kiihner, Ausfiihrl. Gram., 2te Aufl., i. 716.) This view is confirmed 
by the fact that we never find εὐλογητός used like εὐλογημένος with ein 
or ἔστω; wherever the verb is expressed with εὐλογητός it is always in 
the indicative. For example, in Rom. i. 25, τὸν κτίσαντα, ὃς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς 
εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, it is surely more natural to take εὐλογητός as signifying “to 
be praised,” /audandus, than actually “ praised,” /awdatus. See Fritz- 
sche and Van Hengel zz J/oc., the latter of whom cites the passage of 
Philo referred to above. So in other doxologies we find the indica- 
tive, εὐλογητός ei, Ps. cxviil. (cxix.) 12; Judith xiii. 17; Tob. iii. 115 viii. 
Gy 5, Τὸ; 17; ΣΙ 13; Orat. Azar 2; ‘Cant. trium:puer. (Fritzsche), 23, 
30-33; I Esdr. iv. 60; 1 Macc. iv. 20; Const. Apost. vii. 34, 49; Act. 
Phil. c. 26; Lit. S. Jac. in Hammond’s Axndzent Liturgies (Oxford, 
N575), Pp. 25, 20.) 28, 31, 33, 30, 39; 53, 51: eit, Const. (Anaph.:s. 
Chrys.), p. 119; (Anaph. 5. Basil.) p. 148; Lit. S. Marci, p. 179; and 
SO 0 dv evAoynréc, 2 Cor. xi. 31; Lit. S. Marci, pp. 176, 192.. This is the 
view of many excellent scholars besides Fritzsche and Van Hengel; 
as Erasmus, Beza (on Mark xiv. 61), Crell on Rom. ix. 5, Tholuck, 
Rickert, and the lexicographers Schleusner, Wahl, Bretschneider, and 
Robinson. On the other side there are indeed very eminent names, as 
Grimm in his Zex., Meyer, De Wette and Philippi on Rom. i. 25, and 
Harless on Eph. i. 3; but I find no argument in any of them except 
Harless, and his arguments seem to me of little weight. They rest 
mainly on the assumption that εὐλογητός is taken to mean “one who 
must be praised” instead of “one to whom praise is due.” That the 
latter conception of God may naturally be expressed in a doxology is 
shown by Rev. iv. 11, ἄξιος εἶ, ὁ κύριος Kai θεὸς ἡμῶν, λάβεῖν τὴν δόξαν, κ. τ. A. 5 
comp. Rev. v. 12. See also Ruinart, Acta Martyrum, ed. Galura, ii. 


410 Ὦ CRITICAL ESSAYS 


186 (S. Bonifatius, 8. 12), ὅτε σοι πρέπει τιμὴ, k.T.4., and iii. 62 (SS. 
Tarachus, Probus, etc., § 11), ὅτε αὐτῷ πρέπει δόξα͵ κ᾿ τ. 2.3 Const. Ap. 
Wil, 25; Act. ibarn. c. 26; Act. Joh. Ὁ. 223. Protevifaeje25 5, Moss. 
Act. Pil. A. c. 16, §8, MSS.; Narr. Jos. c. 5, § 4. I accordingly agree 
with Buttmann, 4. 7. Gram., p. 120 (137 Thayer), that in doxologies 
with εὐλογητός we are to supply ἐστίν rather than εἴ) or ἔστω. The sen- 
tence is therefore, in these cases, grammatically considered, declarative, 
not optative, though the whole effect of the original is perhaps better 
given by rendering “be blessed” than “is to be praised.” Compare 
further 1 Pet. iv. 11; Matt. vi. 13 (Text. Rec.); Clem. Rom. 22. ad Cor. 
c. 58 (new addit.; contra, c. 32); and see Lightfoot’s note on Gal. i. 5. 

We must notice the difference in meaning, not affecting however 
the position of the words, between εὐλογητός in the Septuagint when 
applied to men, as in Gen. (xii. 2, variante lectione) xxiv. 31 (v.1.):; xxvi. 
29 (v. 1); Deut.. vii. 143 (xxvii. 6, v. 1; πασχα 24, vol); Judgesanam 
2 (Ὁ. 1}; Ruth ii. 20; 1 Sam. xv. 13 (v. 1.); Judith xin..18 (v. ΠῚ: fob 
xi. 16 (in cne text), xiii. 12 (in one text), 18 (do.), and when applied to 
God. In the former case, it is used in the sense of “ prospered,” 
“blessed ” (namely, by God), and is to be taken, probably, in a simply 
passive sense; εὐλογημένος often occurs as a various reading. As 
applied to God, I believe Philo’s distinction holds good. In the par- 
ticular case, however, to which he refers, Gen. xii. 2, where he reads 
εὐλογητός (SO many other authorities, see Holmes), applied to Abraham, 
his exposition is fanciful. In several cases the terms may seem to be 
intentionally distinguished; see Gen. xiv. 19, 20; I Sam. xxv. 32, 33; 
Tobit xi. 16, Sin.; coztra, Judith xiii. 18. 

One other remark may be made. In speaking of εὐλογητός and sim- 
ilar words in “exclamatory doxologies” (see Dr. Dwight as above, pp. 
31-39), we must guard against a fallacy. “ Exclamatory” as applied to 
sentences denotes a characteristic which exists in very different degrees 
in different cases; where one printer would use a mark of exclamation, 
another would often put a period. Because the placing of such a predi- 
cate as εὐλογητός first in the sentence gives or tends to give it an exclama- 
tory character, we cannot straightway draw the inference that in αὐ 
doxologies in which the verb is omitted εὐλογητός, if used, must have the 
first place. One may admit that in exclamatory doxologies εὐλογητός 
always stands first, and deny that the doxology in Rom. ix. 5 is exclama- 
tory. The elliptical word I suppose to be ἐστί, as in most at least of the 
clauses immediately preceding. 


ΧΎΥΤΙ. 


RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS IX. τ. 


[From the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis for 1883.] 


SINCE the publication of the articles on Rom. ix. 5 in 
the Journal of our Society for 1881, there have been several 
discussions of the passage which seem worthy of notice, 
especially as in some of them those articles have been 
quoted with approval or criticised. The venerable pastor 
and Professor of Theology in the University of Geneva, 
Hugues Oltramare, has a long and able note upon it in his 
recent elaborate and valuable Commentaire sur l’ Epitre aux 
Romains (2 vols., Geneva and Paris, 1881-82). He adopts 
the doxological construction, placing a period after σάρκα. In 
England, the marginal note of the Revisers appears to have 
given great offence in certain quarters. “1 must press upon 
every reader,” says Canon Cook, “the duty —I use the word 
‘duty’ emphatically —of reading the admirable note of Dr. 
Gifford [on this passage] in the ‘Speaker’s Commentary.’ 
I should scarcely have thought it credible, in face of the 
unanswered and unanswerable arguments there urged, that 
English divines would venture to have given their sanction 
to one of the most pernicious and indefensible innovations 
of rationalistic criticism.” (Zhe Revised Version of the First 
Three Gospels, London, 1882, p. 167, note.) Elsewhere he 
speaks of “the very painful and offensive note on Romans 
ix. 5, in the margin of the Revised Version” (zdzd., p. 194). 

It appears that Canon Cook sent a challenge to Canon 
Kennedy, Regius Professor of Greek in the University of 
Cambridge, to meet the arguments of Dr. Gifford, and that 
this led to the publication of the first pamphlet to be 


412 ; CRITICAL ESSAYS 


noticed, the title of which is given below.* Dr. Gifford re- 
plied to Professor Kennedy in a pamphlet of sixty-six pages ; + 
and Professor Kennedy rejoined in a pamphlet of seventy- 
two pages, entitled Pauline Christology, Part I.{ We shall 
probably have in due time a surrejoinder by Dr. Gifford, and 
Part II. of Professor Kennedy’s Pauline Christology. 

Professor Kennedy translates the last part of Rom. ix. 5 
as follows: ‘‘Andof whom zs the Christ as concerning flesh. 
He who is over all zs God, worthy to be praised for ever. 
Amen.” (Sermon, etc. p. 19.) As was remarked above, 
pp. 346, 385, there is no grammatical difficulty in this con- 
struction. But I cannot adopt the view which Professor 
Kennedy takes of the passage. He regards the last part 
of Rom. ix. 5 as added by St. Paul “to win the ear and 
gain the confidence of the Jews by declaring his adherence 
to doctrines which they prized, a Jewish Messiah, and one 
supreme God worthy to be praised for ever” (Sermon, p. 21; 
comp. pp. 20, 25, and Pauline Christology, 1., p. 61.) 

My objections to this view are: (1) that there was no need 
of Paul’s declaring his adherence to doctrines which neither 
he nor any other Christian of that day was ever charged 
with questioning, the Jewish origin of the Messiah, and the 
unity of God; and (2) that the last clause of verse 5, accord- 
ing to Dr. Kennedy’s construction, is not a direct affirma- 
tion of monotheism in distinction from polytheism, though 
monotheism is implied in the language. 

Were Professor Kénnedy’s construction of the passage to 
be adopted, I should rather regard the ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων as having 
reference to God’s providential government of the universe, 
and especially to his providential dealings with the Jews, in 
the revelations and privileges granted them with a view to 


* The Divinity of Christ. A Sermon preached on Christmas Day, 1882, before the Univer- 
sity of Cambridge. With an Appendix on Rom. ix. 5 and Tit. ii. 13. By Benjamin Hall Ken- 
nedy, D.D.... Printed by desire of the Vice-Chancellor. Cambridge, a/so London, 1883. 
8vo. pp. vii, 32. 

t+... A Letter to the Rev. Benjamin Hall Kennedy, D.D.,... in Reply to Criticisms on the 
Interpretation of Rom. ix. 5, in ‘‘The Speaker’s Commentary.’”? By Edwin Hamilton Gifford, 
D.D. ... Cambridge, a/so London, 1883. 8vo. pp. 66. 

+ Pauline Christology, Part I. Examination of Romans ix. 5, being a Rejoinder to the 
Rev. Dr. Gifford’s Reply. By Benjamin Hall Kennedy, D.D. Cambridge, etc., 1883. Svo. 
pp. 72. 


RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS IX. 5 413 


the grand consummation of them all in the advent of the 
Messiah, as the head of a new spiritual dispensation, em- 
bracing all men upon equal terms. The ®,in this connec- 
tion, may include the past, present, and future; and we 
might paraphrase as follows, supplying what may naturally 
be supposed to have been in the mind of the Apostle: “He 
who is over 411, He who has presided over the whole his- 
tory of the Jewish nation, and bestowed upon it its glorious 
privileges ; He whose hand is in all that is now taking place, 
who brings good out of evil, the conversion of the Gentiles 
out of the temporary blindness and disobedience of the 
Jews; He whose promises will not fail, who has not cast off 
his people, and who will finally make all things redound to 
the glory of his wisdom and goodness, “is God, blessed for 
ever, Amen.” 

But with this understanding of the bearing of the ὁ ὧν én 
πάντων͵ it seems more natural to regard the enumeration of 
the distinctive privileges of the Jews as ending with ἐξ ὧν ὁ 
χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, and to take the last clause as a doxology, 
prompted by the same view of the all-comprehending, benefi- 
cent providence of God, and the same devout and grateful 
feeling, which inspired the doxology at the end of the 
eleventh chapter. 

Professor Kennedy is a devout believer in the doctrine of 
the Trinity, and the deity of Christ; and one cannot help 
admiring the conscientiousness and sturdy honesty which 
lead him, in the pure love of truth, to defend an unpop- 
ular view of this mooted passage. He speaks feelingly of 
“that mischievous terrorism, which, like carbonic dioxide 
in a crowded and closed room, pervades and corrupts with 
its stifling influence our British theological atmosphere.” 
“Men,” he says, “who judge of this verse as I do, and who 
publish and defend that judgment as I do, know that they 
have to encounter the open rage of a few, the suppressed 
displeasure of a great many, and the silence of masses, who, 
whatever they may think on one side or the other, yet for 
various private reasons consider ‘golden silence’ the safe 
course.” (Pauline Christology, 1., p. 3; comp. pp. 34, 38.) 


414 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


It is not my purpose to enter into any detailed analysis 
or criticism of Professor Kennedy’s pamphlets. He urges 
powerfully against Dr. Gifford’s view the Pauline usage of 
θεός, and other considerations; but on some minor points 
takes positions which seem to me untenable, and exposes 
himself to the keen criticism of his antagonist, who is not 
slow to take advantage of any incautious expression. In 
the Pauline Christology, I., pp. 22, 23, he presents, though 
with some hesitation, an extraordinary view of the cause of 
Paul’s grief expressed in Rom. ix. 2, 3; but I will not stop 
to discuss it. He also takes an indefensible position (zdzd., 
pp. 26, 32) in regard to Cyril of Alexandria, and draws, I 
conceive, an inference altogether false (pp. 28, 29) from the 
passages in Origen against Celsus, vill. 12 and 72. The 
former of these will be discussed hereafter in reply to Dr. 
Gifford : in the latter we have the expression τοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσι λόγου 
καὶ θεοῦ, Where the ἐπὶ πᾶσι belongs only to λόγου, not to θεοῦ also, 
as Professor Kennedy seems to understand it; comp. (λέ. 
Cels, v. 4, Tov... ἐμψύχου λόγου Kai θεοῦ. Christ, according to. Ore 
gen, 1S ὁ ἐπὶ πᾶσι κύριος, aNd ὁ ἐπὶ πᾶσι λόγος, but not ὁ ἐπὶ πᾶσι θεός, 
which is, as Dr. Kennedy elsewhere observes, “the Father's 
express title, applied by Origen to the supreme God nearly 
100 times.” (Pauline Christology, I., p. 27.) 

Professor Oltramare had not seen the articles in our 
Journal, but replies effectively on many points to the argu- 
ments of Godet and Dr. Gifford. I only note here that 
Oltramare, Dr. Gifford, and Professor Kennedy agree in tak- 
ing ὁ χριστός, in ver. 5, not as a proper name, “Christ,” but in 
the sense of “the Christ,” “the Messiah,” which the defi- 
nite article suggests and the context requires, or at least 
favors. 

Dr. Gifford’s pamphlet is mainly occupied with a reply to 
Dr. Kennedy ; but he bestows some criticisms on my paper 
in the Journal for 1881, of which it seems to me well to 
take notice. I regret to say that he also makes some com- 
plaints, which I must also consider. 

He complains, first (Letter, p. 27), that in quoting a sen- 
tence of his (Journal, p. 91 [p. 337 above]) I have omitted 


RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS ΙΧ. 5 415 


altogether the first part, in which the cause of Paul’s anguish 
is said to be “the fall of his brethren.” 

I omitted it simply for the sake of brevity. I had already 
assumed this as the cause of his grief, at the beginning of 
the discussion (/ournal, p. 91 [p. 336 f.]). I had expressly 
mentioned it as such, twice, on the very page (p. QI [see as 
above]) containing my quotation from Dr. Gifford; it was 
implied in the clause “whom they have rejected,” which I 
did quote; and it was a point about which there was no dis- 
pute. Every reader would take it for granted that when 
Paul’s anguish was spoken of, it was his anguish on that 
account. Under these circumstances I fail to perceive how 
my omission of a part of Dr. Gifford’s sentence, in which 
I had nothing to criticise, has given him any reasonable 
ground of complaint. 

Here I observe that Dr. Gifford passes over without 
notice the first point of my criticism of his sentence (/owr- 
ἘΠ Or, 92) pp, 336, 337 abovel). I still’ venture’ to 
think: that it is not unworthy of attention. 

Dr. Gifford next complains that after having once quoted 
the remainder of his sentence fully, I proceed to criticise it, 
omitting in my second quotation the words “whom they had 
rejected.” I omitted this clause because, having been just 
quoted, it seemed unnecessary to repeat it; because it 
formed no part of the particular privelege of the Jews of 
which Dr. Gifford was speaking, the climax of which was 
expressed by the words “the Dzvzze Saviour” ; and because 
its omission was likely to make the point of my criticism 
strike the reader somewhat more forcibly. That I have 
done Dr. Gifford no injustice seems to me clear from the 
fact that, in the sentence quoted, ‘‘his anguish was deepened 
[not caused] most of all by the fact that their race gave 
birth to the Divine Saviour,” the phrase “his anguish” caz 
only mean “his anguish on account of the rejection of the 
Messiah by the great majority of his countrymen.” This 
is also clearly implied in the first words of my criticism, 
“ Paul’s grief for his unbelieving countrymen, then.” Not a 
word of my criticism, which Dr. Gifford seems to misunder- 


416 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


stand, would be affected in the least by the insertion of the 
omitted clause. 

Two typographical errors in Dr. Gifford’s pamphlet give 
a false color to his complaint. He calls on the reader to 
“observe the note of admiration in place of the all-important 
words ‘whom they had rejected.’” It stands zzszde of the 
quotation-marks in the sentence as he gives it, as if I had 
ascribed it to 42m, but outside in the sentence as printed in 
the Journal, Again, in quoting his own sentence from the 
Commentary on Romans, he omits the comma before “whom 
they have rejected,” thus making the relative clause an in- 
separable part of the sentence, and aggravating my supposed 
offence in omitting it. 

In commenting on Dr. Gifford’s assertion that “ Paul’s 
anguish was deepened most of all by the thought that their 
race gave birth to the Divine Saviour, whom they have re- 
jected,” I had exclaimed, ‘“‘ Paul’s grief for his unbelieving 
countrymen, then, had extinguished his gratitude for the 
inestimable blessings which he personally owed to Christ; 
it had extinguished his gratitude for the fact that the God 
who rules over all had sent his Son to be the Saviour of the 
world!” (Journal, p. 92 [p. 338 above].) 

Dr. Gifford remarks, “Another note of admiration at 
Paul’s ingratitude, a pure invention of Professor Abbot” 
(Letter, p. 28). 

My critic appears to misunderstand me. I shall be very 
sorry if, through my unskilful use of irony of which Dr. 
Gifford speaks, any other reader has failed to perceive that 
my note of admiration is an expression of wonder that in his 
reference to the Jewish birth of the Messiah as deepening 
Paul’s grief at the unbelief of his countrymen, and in his 
whole argument against a doxology, Dr. Gifford ignores the 
fact that THE ADVENT OF CurIST, necessarily suggested by 
the words καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, was to the Apostle a 
cause of joy and gratitude immensely outweighing all tem- 
porary occasions of grief, and might well prompt an outburst 
of thanksgiving and praise to God. That the very language 
he uses did not suggest this is a marvel. He does not meet 
at all the point of my objection to his view. 


RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS ΙΧ, 5 417 


It will be observed that I do not, with many commenta- 
tors, regard the doxology here as simply or mainly an ex- 
pression of gratitude for the distinctive privileges bestowed 
upon the Jews as a nation, and still less for the particular 
fact that, as Dr. Gifford expresses it (p. 30, and note in his 
Commentary), “Christ was born a Jew.” That gratitude, 
not sorrow, was the predominant sentiment in the mind of 
the Apostle in view of these privileges I do not doubt ; but 
these particular occasions for thankfulness were lost, I con- 
ceive, in the thought of the actual advent of Christ, incom- 
parably the greatest and most joyful event in the history of 
the world, and the most glorious expression of God’s love 
and mercy to man, for which eternal gratitude was due. It 
was this which prompted the song of the angels, “Glory to 
God in the highest,” and which prompted here the doxology 
which so fitly closes the Apostle’s grand historic survey of 
those privileges of his people, which were the providential 
preparation for it. 

Let us now consider more particularly Dr. Gifford’s argu- 
ments and criticisms. 


JEWISH PRIVILEGES, AND CONNECTION OF THOUGHTS 
IN ROM. IX. 1-5. 

Dr. Gifford assumes that the Apostle, in his enumeration 
of the privileges which God had bestowed on his nation, 
names them only as reasons for the deepening of his grief 
for the fall of his countrymen; and thus finds in vv. 1-5 of 
the chapter one unbroken strain of lamentation, leaving no 
room for a doxology. 

It appears to me that this is a very narrow view of what 
was probably in the Apostle’s mind, and that there are 
other aspects of these privileges, which the way in which 
they are mentioned would more naturally suggest to the 
reader, and under which it is far more probable that the 
Apostle viewed them here. As I have elsewhere observed, 
the manner in which he recites them is not that of one 
touching upon a subject on which it is painful to dwell. To 
say nothing here of the οἵτινες, observe the effect of the repe- 


418 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


tition of the ὧν and the «ai. Let us consider some of these 
other aspects. 

(1) The privileges of the Jews which the Apostle recounts 
were the glory of their nation, distinguishing it above all the 
other nations of the earth. This detailed enumeration of 
them, so evidently appreciative, was adapted to gratify and 
conciliate his Jewish readers, and to assure them of the 
sincerity of his affection for his countrymen. It was also 
adapted to take down the conceit of his Gentile readers, who 
were prone to despise the Hebrew race. 

(2) These privileges had been the source of inestimable 
blessings to the Israelites in the course of their long history. 
(See Rom. iii. 1, 2.) Through them the worship of one 
God, who rewarded righteousness and punished iniquity, 
was preserved in their nation. 

(3) They were parts of a great providential plan which 
was to find and had found its consummation in the advent 
of the Messiah, “the unspeakable gift” of God’s love and 
mercy. 

(4) They were tokens of the Divine favor to the Jews 
as a nation, and especially to their pious ancestors, which 
gave assurance to Paul that God would not cast off his 
people, whom he had chosen; that they were still “beloved 
for the fathers’ sake”; that the present unhappy state of 
things was only temporary, and that, finally, all Israel 
should be saved. 

The first three aspects of these privileges are obvious, 
and would naturally suggest themselves to every reader of 
the Epistle ; the fourth we have strong reasons for believing 
to have been also in the mind of the Apostle. (See the 
eleventh chapter.) 

Here I must express my surprise at the manner in which 
Dr. Gifford has treated my quotations from the eleventh 
chapter in reference to this last-mentioned aspect of the 
Jewish privileges. (Letter, p. 26f.) He omits entirely my 
statement of the purpose for which I introduce them (/ozw7- 
nal, p. 92 [p. 338 above]), though this is absolutely essential 
to the understanding of what is meant by “this view” in the 


RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS ΙΧ. 5 419 


first sentence which he quotes from me; and then, wholly 
without ground, represents me as teaching two things: (1) 
“that as we read the simple enumeration of Jewish privi- 
leges in vv. 3, 4 [he means vv. 4, 5], we are not to connect 
it, as is most natural, with the preceding context.” How 
can he say this, when in the whole treatment of the subject 
(Journal, pp. 88 f. [p. 333 f.], 91 [337], 2d paragr., 104, 105 
[p. 353 f.]), I have taken particular pains to point out the 
connection of thought, and to show that my view of vv. 4, 5, 
agrees with the context? (2) That, “in order to understand 
the Apostle’s meaning at this point, we must anticipate by 
an effort of our own imagination all the long-sustained argu- 
ment ...and the far-reaching prophetic hopes which make 
up the three following chapters.’ If Dr. Gifford had not 
omitted the sentences in which I stated my purpose, it would 
be at once seen that I did not make these quotations to 
show what the veader of vv. 4, 5, is expected to draw from 
them by an effort of his own imagination, but what the 
Apostle, together with other things more obvious to the 
reader, may be reasonably supposed to have had in mind 
when he wrote. When a person treats at length of a subject 
on which he must have meditated often and long, meeting 
objections which he must have been frequently called upon 
to answer, I have been accustomed to suppose that what he 
actually says may afford some indication of what was in his 
mind when he began to write. 

I admit that the privileges which the Jews enjoyed as a 
nation may be regarded as having incidentally aggravated 
the sin and the shame of their rejection of the Messiah ; 
that the contemplation of them under that aspect would 
have deepened in some measure the Apostle’s grief; and 
that it is possible, though I see nothing which directly 
proves it, that he viewed them under this aspect here. Dr. 
Gifford’s error, I conceive, lies in ignoring the other obvious 
aspects, under which they could be only regarded as occa- 
sions of thankfulness; and in not recognizing the well- 
known psychological fact that the same object of thought 
often excites in the mind at the same time, or in the most 


420 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


rapid succession, mingled emotions of grief and joy and 
gratitude. One knows little of the deeper experiences of 
life who has not felt this. That this should be true here 
in the case of the Apostle who describes himself as “sor- 
rowful, yet always rejoicing,” who exhorts his Christian 
brethren to “rejoice evermore,” and to “give thanks always 
for all things to God, the Father, in the name of our Lord 
Jesus Christ,” cannot be regarded as strange or unnatural. 

There is no incongruity between sorrow for the misuse 
of a great privilege, whether by ourselves or by others, and 
devout thankfulness to God for its bestowal. In a pious 
mind, these feelings would naturally co-exist. Take, for ex- 
ample, the privilege of having been born and educated in 
a Christian land, so sadly abused by the majority of those 
who enjoy it. 

I may note here another fallacy which appears to me to 
lurk in the language Dr. Gifford uses respecting the Jewish 
privileges. He repeatedly speaks of them as “lost” (pp. 
30, 34, 35), inferring that the remembrance of them can 
only deepen the Apostle’s grief. But these privileges were 
distinctions and glories of the Jewish people which from 
their very nature could not be lost. They, and the bless- 
ings of which they had been the source, were facts of his- 
tory. Even in the case of the unbelieving Jews, though 
abused, or not taken advantage of, they were not, properly 
speaking, “lost.” The privileges themselves remained un- 
changed, a permanent subject of thankfulness to God. In 
Dr. Gifford’s assumption that verses 4 and 5 are only a wail 
of lamentation, he ignores these obvious considerations. 

I will here state briefly my view of the connection of 
thought between vv. 4, 5, of the ninth chapter, and what 
precedes. 

In vv. 1-5 the purpose of the Apostle was to conciliate 
his Jewish-Christian readers, and indirectly the unbelieving 
‘ Jews,* by assuring them of his strong affection for his peo- 

*Though the Epistle to the Romans was not addressed to unbelieving Jews, one object of 
it was to meet, and to enable its readers to meet, objections which the unbelieving Jews urged 
against Christianity, and which many Jewish Christians urged against Paul’s view of it. The 


strength of the prejudice against himself personally which the Apostle of the Gentiles had to 
encounter is shown by the earnestness of his asseveration in ver. 1. 


RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS ΙΧ. 5 421 


ple, and his appreciation of their privileges.* His affection 
is shown (1) by his deep sorrow for the unhappy condition 
of the great mass of his countrymen in their rejection of 
the Messiah (ver. 2); and (2) by his readiness to make any 
sacrifice, even that of his own salvation, were such a thing 
possible, if thereby he might bring them to Christ. His 
appreciation of their privileges is indicated by the detailed 
manner in which they are enumerated, and is distinctly ex- 
pressed by the οἰτινές εἰσιν Ἰσραηλεῖται and what follows. The 
οἵτινες Shows that it is not merely because he belongs to the 
same nation with the Jews that he is ready to make such 
a sacrifice for them; but because their nation is.such a 
nation, distinguished above all the other nations of the 
earth; a nation dedicated to God, whose whole history had 
been glorified by extraordinary marks of the Divine favor, 
a nation to which he is proud and thankful to belong. The 
οἵτινες introduces the destingutshing characteristic of his συγγενεῖς 
κατὰ σάρκα. ‘They are not merely fellow-countrymen, they are 
ISRAELITES ; and as Philippi remarks, “In dem Namen Israelit 
lag die ganze Wiirde des Volkes beschlossen.” So far as 
the word οἵτινες indicates a causa/ relation, it strengthens the 
reason for the affirmation which éyz12 diately precedes oe 
directly that’ in, ver. 2, to whieh) Ir. (Gifford. refers: it); 4 
serves, as Tholuck remarks, “zur Begriindung eines eg 
Grades aufopfernder Liebe.” Dr. Gifford’s assumption that 
the memory of these privileges only deepened the Apostle’s 
grief is not proved by the οἵτινες, and really rests on no 
evidence. 

So much for the connection of vv. 4, 5, with what pre- 
cedes. How naturally the doxology at the end was sug: 
gested, and the reason for the position of εὐλογητός, are 


*So Theophylact, on vv. 1,2: Μέλλει προϊὼν δεῖξαι, ὅτε ov πάντες οἱ ἐξ ᾿Αβραὰμ 
σπέρμα αὐτοῦ εἰσι. Kat ἵνα μὴ δόξῃ κατ᾽’ ἐμπάθειαν ταῦτα λέγειν, προλαμβάνει, καὶ 
λέγει περὶ τῶν βραίων τὰ χρηστότερα, τὴν ὑπόνοιαν ταύτην ἀναιρῶν, καὶ ὁμολογεῖ 
αὐτοὺς ὑπερβαλλόντως φιλεῖν. And οῃ νν. 4,5: ᾿Βπαινεῖ τούτους ἐνταῦθα καὶ μεγαλύ- 
vet, ἵνα, ὕπερ ἔφην, μὴ δόξῃ κατ᾽ ἐμπάθειαν λέγειν. ᾿Ηρέμα δὲ καὶ ἐπαινίττεται, ὅτι ὁ 
μὲν θεὸς ἠβούλετο αὐτοὺς σωθῆναι, κιτ.. So also, in the main, Theodoret, Calvin, Locke, 
and especially Flacius Illyricus, whose notes on vv. 1, 3, and 4 are very much to the point. Dr. 
Hodge has stated his view of the Avostle’s purpose in almost the same language as I have used 
above. (See Journal, p. 91, note [p. 337 above]; see also Dr. Dwight, z/.d., p. 41.) 


422 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


pointed out on pp. 88 f., 90 ff., and 104 f. of the Journal [pp. 
334, 336 ff., 353 f. above], and I need not repeat what is 
there said. 

ὃ ὦν. 

In Dr. Gifford’s remarks on ὁ ὧν (p. 46), he speaks of my 
“oratuitous assumption that ὁ ὧν, in this passage, ‘admits of 
being regarded as the subject of an independent sentence,’ ”’ 
and affirms that this “is simply ... begging the whole ques- 
tion in dispute.” It is so if “admits of being regarded” is 
synonymous with “szzst be regarded” ; not otherwise. That 
ὁ ὦν, grammatically considered (and it is of this point that I 
was speaking), may either refer to the preceding ὁ χριστός, or 
introduce an independent sentence, is simply a thing plain 
on the face of the passage. If Dr. Gifford denies this, he 
not only contradicts the authorities he cites, who only con- 
tend that it is sore naturally connected with what goes 
before, but virtually charges such scholars as Winer, 
Fritzsche, Meyer, Ewald, Van Hengel, Professor Campbell, 
Professor Kennedy, Professor Jowett, Dr. Hort, Lachmann, 
and Kuenen and Cobet, with ignorance or violation of the 
laws of the Greek language in the construction which they 
have actually given the passage. 

In reply to Dr. Dwight, who admits that the construction 
of this passage is ambiguous, but makes a statement about 
‘‘cases similar to that which is here presented,” I remark 
that no similar case of ambiguity from the use of the 
participle with the article has ever, to my knowledge, been 
pointed out, so that we have no means of comparing this 
passage with a similar one. Dr. Gifford seems to argue 
from this (p. 46) that there is no ambiguity here. But I 
fail to perceive any coherence in his reasoning. He “‘con- 
cludes” that St. Paul “could not possibly have intended his 
words to bear”’ an ambiguous construction “in a passage of 
the highest doctrinal importance.” Certainly. No writer, 
whose object is to express and not to conceal his thoughts, 
zntentionally uses ambiguous language. But how does this 
prove that the language here is not actually ambiguous? 


RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS ΙΧ, 5 423 


The fact that it is so is plain; and it is also obvious that, 
had the Apostle intended to express the meaning conveyed 
by Dr. Gifford’s construction, all ambiguity would have been 
prevented by using ὅς ἐστιν instead of ὁ ὦν. 

If Dr. Gifford’s proposition, “The reference of ὁ ὧν not 
ambiguous” (p. 45), denies a grammatical ambiguity here, 
it denies, as I have said, what is plain on the face of the 
passage, and what is generally, if not universally, admitted 
by competent scholars ; if, on the other hand, conceding the 
grammatical possibility of two different constructions of 
ὁ ὧν here, he affirms that there is no vea/ ambiguity, because 
he deems the one he adopts the only one tenable, he simply 
begs the whole question. 

It is true, as Dr. Gifford observes, that in the cases in 
the New Testament in which ὁ ὧν introduces an independent 
sentence no other construction is grammatically possible. 
But it is equally true, on the other hand, that in the cases 
in which ὁ ὧν refers to a preceding subject no other construc- 
tion is grammatically possible. It follows that the examples 
of the use of ὁ ὧν in the New Testament do not help us to 
decide which of the two possible constructions is the more 
probable here. There are no “cases similar to that which 
is here presented.” Dr. Gifford’s claim that 2 Cor.:xi. 31 is 
similar will be examined presently. 

On what ground, then, is it affirmed that the construction 
which refers ὁ ὧν to ὁ χριστός is “easier”’ here than that which 
makes it the subject of an independent sentence? There is 
not the slightest grammatical difficulty in either. Nor is 
there the slightest difficulty in the latter construction, on 
account of the fact that the verb is not expressed. In the 
case of a doxology, which the ᾿Αμήν naturally suggests, the 
ellipsis of ἐστί or εἴη, when εὐλογητός is employed, is the con- 
stant usage; nor is there any grammatical difficulty in the 
construction adopted by Professor Kennedy. 

It has indeed been asserted by many, as by Dr. Gifford 
for example, that the construction of the ὁ ὧν for which he 
contends here is the “usual” one, and, therefore, more easy 
and natural. But the examples which I have cited of the 


424 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


other construction disprove this assertion, and also show 
that, in general, the construction of the participle with the 
article in the nominative case, as the subject of an inde- 
pendent sentence, is much more common in the New Testa- 
ment than that which refers it to a substantive preceding. 
(See Journal, p. 97 [above, p. 344].) 

In one respect, and one only, so far as I can see, the con- 
struction which refers ὁ ὧν to ὁ χριστός may be regarded as the 
more natural. It is the one which naturally presents itself 
first to the mind. But it has this advantage only for a 
moment. As the reader proceeds, he perceives at once 
that ὁ ὧν may introduce an independent sentence, and the 
Αμήν suggests a doxology. Even more may be said: the 
separation of ὁ ὧν from ὁ χριστός by τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, and the nec- 
essary pause after σάρκα, might at once suggest that ὁ ὧν (not 
“who is,” but “he who 15.) may introduce a new sentence. 
But waiving this possibility, as soon as it is perceived that 
the passage admits grammatically of two constructions, the 
question which is the more natural does not depend at all 
on the fact that the one presented itself to the mind a 
moment before the other, but must be determined by weigh- 
ing all the considerations which bear on the subject. One 
of these considerations, second to no other in importance, 
is Paul’s use of language. In the eight preceding chapters 
of the Epistle the Apostle has used the word θεός as a proper 
name, designating the “one God, the Father,’ about eighty- 
seven times, and has nowhere applied it to Christ. Could 
anything then be more natural than for the primitive reader 
of the Epistle to adopt the construction which accords with 
this wzzform usage of the writer? 

On p. 48 Dr. Gifford claims that 2 Cor. xi. 31 is “exactly 
similar in form” to Rom. ix. 5, and therefore proves “ that 
the clause ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων x. τ. Δ. must, according to Paul’s usage, 
be referred to the preceding subject ὁ ypwrée”’; and he again 
speaks of the ‘‘exact correspondence between the two pas- 
sages.” He overlooks two fundamental differences: (1) that 
in 2 Cor. xi. 31 the construction which refers the ὁ ὧν to ὁ θεός 
x. 7.4. is the only one fosszble; and (2) that what precedes 


RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS IX. 5 425 


the ὁ ὧν does not, as he incorrectly affirms, form a sentence 
“erammatically complete,” as in Rom. ix. 5; but, on the 
contrary, an essential part of the sentence, the object of the 
transitive verb οἶδεν (namely, ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι), is separated from 
the verb which governs it by the clause introduced by ὁ ὧν. 


DISTINCTION BETWEEN θεός AND κύριος. 


In regard to the distinction between θεός and κύριος, which 
Dr. Gifford charges me with having “asserted in a most 
inaccurate form” (Leéter, Ὁ. 12), I cannot perceive that he 
has pointed out any inaccuracy in my statement. That the 
word θεός in general expresses a higher dignity than κύριος 
seems to me beyond question. The use of κύριος in the Sep- 
tuagint as a proper name, taking the place of Jehovah on 
account of a Jewish superstition respecting the pronuncia- 
tion of the ¢etragrammaton, is something wholly exceptional 
and peculiar. I have not, however, as Dr. Gifford incor- 
rectly represents, “suppressed all reférence’’ to this very 
frequent use in the Septuagint and occasional use in the 
New Testament. I note the fact that “it is seldom used 
of God in the writings of Paul except in quotations from or 
references to the language of the Old Testament,” and then 
remark upon its twofold use as applied to God in the Septu- 
aeint: (See Journal, pi 127 © labove, ip. 330.) “Thatias a 
title of Christ it does not stand for Jehovah is fully shown, 
I think, by Cremer in his Azblisch-theol. Worterbuch der Neu- 
test. Gracitat, 3te Aufl., p. 483 ff. [4te Aufl., p. 520], or Eng. 
ffans:, 2d ed.,"p 362 i. “lhe argument that as a designa: 
tion of Christ in the writings of St. Paul it is equivalent to 
Jehovah, because in a very few places he applies to Christ 
language of the Old Testament in which κύριος represents 
Jehovah, loses all. its apparent force when we observe the 
extraordinary freedom with which he adapts the language 
of the Old Testament to his purpose without regard to its 
meaning in the connection in which it stands. On this it 
may be enough to refer to Weiss, Bz4/. Theol. of the N. T., 
3d ed., §74.. He remarks: “Paul does not inquire into the 
original meaning of Old Testament exprcssions; he takes 


426 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


them in the sense which he is accustomed to give to similar 
expressions, even in the case of such terms as πίστις, κύριος, 
ebayyeaitectac (Rom. i. 17, ix. 33, X. 13, 15).” 

In the passage of the Old Testament (Ps. cx. 1) which 
Christ himself has quoted (Matt. xxii. 43-45; Mark xii. 35-- 
37; Luke xx. 41-44) as illustrating the meaning of κύριος as 
a designation of the Messiah, the Messiah (if the Psalm 
refers to him) is clearly distinguished from Jehovah, at 
whose right hand he sits, as he is everywhere else in the 
Old Testament.* This very passage is also quoted by the 
Apostle Peter as proving that “God hath MADE Jesus both 
Lord and Christ.” When these and other facts are adduced 
to show that the term ‘ Lord” as applied to Christ in the 
New Testament does not stand for Jehovah, but describes 
the dignity and dominion conferred upon him by God, Dr. 
Gifford simply remarks that “this reasoning has been em- 
ployed again and again in the Arian and Unitarian contro- 
versies, and again and again refuted.” I wonder how many 
of his readers would regard this as a satisfactory answer to 
my quotations (if he had gzvez them) from the Apostles 
Peter and Paul, or are ready to assume, with St. Jerome, 
that Dominatio involves Deitas. The “refutations”’ to 
which Dr. Gifford refers, “again and again” repeated, do 
not appear to have been convincing to those to whom they 
were addressed. 

Dr. Gifford refers to Waterland, Pearson, and Weiss. 
Weiss has already been sufficiently answered by Weiss; 
see above. Waterland and Pearson cite such passages as 
Hosea i. 7, “I will save them by Jehovah their God, and 
will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, nor 
by horses, nor by horsemen,” as proving that Jesus Christ 
is called Jehovah in the Old Testament. (Pearson, Expos. 
of the Creed, p. 217 f., Nichols’s ed.) Pearson cites to the 
same purpose Zech. x. 12; Jer ‘xxin. 5, 6 (comp, Jen κι 
15, 16); Zech. il. τὸ, and other passages. Such exegesis 
might perhaps be pardoned in the time of Pearson and 
Waterland, though commentators like Calvin, Pocock, Dru- 


* See, for example, Micah y. 4: “And he shall stand and feed in the strength of Jehovah, 
in the majesty of the name of Jehovah, H1s Gop.”’ 


RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS IX. 5 427 


sius, Grotius, and LeClerc had rejected this wild interpre- 
tation; but it can hardly be supposed that it needs a formal 
refutation at the present day. It may be enough to refer 
Dr. Gifford to “The Speaker’s Commentary ”’ on the pas- 
sages mentioned, and the note in the Journal for 1881, p. 124 
[above, p. 376]. 


ORIGEN. 


Dr. Gifford still appeals to Rufinus’s translation of Ori- 
gen’s Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans as proving 
that Origen “certainly” interpreted the last part of Rom. 
ix. 5 as he does (Letter, pp. 32 ff., 65). His positiveness is 
not abated by the circumstance that Rufinus so altered, 
abridged, and interpolated this work of Origen, that for the 
most part we have no means of determining what belongs 
to Origen and what to Rufinus, and that his friends thought 
he ought to claim it as his own.* 

Dr. Gifford gives his readers no hint of this important 
fact, of which he could not have been ignorant, and for 
which I had cited Matthaei, Redepenning, and Rufinus 
himself (Journal, p. 135). There is perhaps no higher 
authority in Patrology than Cave, who, in his list of Ori- 
gen’s writings, thus describes the work on which Dr. Gifford 
relies with so much confidence: “ /z Epistolam ad Romanos 
Commentariorum tomi 20. quos PESSIMA FIDE A SE VERSOS 
MISERE INTERPOLATOS, DETRUNCATOS et ad mediam fere 
partem contractos edidit Rufinus, versione sua in 10, tomos 
distributa.’ — A/zs¢t. Lzt. s.v. ORIGENES, 1., 118 ed. Oxon. 
1740. Thomasius, in his valuable work on Origen, was more 
prudent in his use of authorities. He says: “Am wenigsten 
aber wagte ich den Commentar zu den Romern zu beniitzen, 
der nach der Peroratio Rufint in explanationem Origeits 
super Epist. Pauli ad Rom. Vol. iv. eine ganzliche Umge- 
staltung durch den Uebersetzer erfahren zu haben scheint.” 
(Ovrigenes (1837), p. 90.) Even Burton, who, in his very 


ἘΦ“ Adversus hance audaciam excandescit Erasmus, nec immerito quidam Rufinum objur- 
garunt, quemadmodum ipse sibi objectum fuisse ait in peroratione sue translationis, quod suum 
potius, quam Origenis nomen hujus operis titulo non inscripsisset. Hinc etiam fit, ut vix 
Origenem in Origene reperias,’’ etc. Lumper, Hést. theol.-crtt., etc., Pars ix. (1792), p. 191. 


428 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


one-sided Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, etc., 
quotes largely from spurious works ascribed to Hippolytus 
and Dionysius of Alexandria without giving any warning to 
the reader, could not bring himself to cite Rufinus’s trans- 
formation of Origen’s Commentary on the Epistle to the 
Romans. (See Jes‘imonies, etc., 2d ed., p. 339.) 

Dr. Gifford's citations from the treatise of Origen against 
Celsus do not appear to me to answer his purpose. He 
quotes passages (Covz. (εἶς. i. 60, 66; 11. 9) in which Origen 
has called Christ θεός but in the last one adduced (il. 9) 
the words at the end of the sentence, κατὰ τὸν τῶν ὅλων θεὸν καὶ 
πατέρα, aS De la Rue remarks, “ manifestam continent antith- 
esin ad ista, μεγάλην ὄντα δύναμιν καὶ θεόν͵ ut pater supra filium eve- 
hatur.’* What is wanted is to show that Origen has not 
merely given Christ the appellation θεός, ‘‘a divine being,” 
in contradistinction from ὁ θεός, ὁ τῶν ὅλων θεός, ὁ ἐπὶ πᾶσι θεός, by 
which titles he constantly designates the Father, but that 
he has called him “God over all,” as he is represented as 
making St. Paul do in this so-called translation of Rufinus. 
It is the Father alone who in the passages cited by Dr. 
Gifford (Cont. Cels. viii. 4, 12) is termed ὁ ἐπὶ πᾶσι θεός; in Viil. 
14 of the same treatise Origen emphatically denies that the 
generality of Christians regarded the Saviour as ‘‘ the God 
over all”; and in the next section he expressly calls him 


* De la Rue understands the κατά to denote “‘ inferiorem ordinem,’’ and says it is often so 
used. I doubt this, and, if the word is genuine, should rather take it as meaning ‘‘in accordance 
with the will of,’’ or ‘‘ by the will of,” nearly as in the phrase κατά θεόν in Plato, Aristotle, and 
other Greek authors. But it seems to me very probable that the true reading is μετά ; comp. 
Orig. 71 Joannem, tom. i. c. 11, TOV μὲ τ ἃ TOV πατέρα TOV ὅλων θεὸν λόγον ; Justin Mari. 
A pol. i. 32, ἡ πρώτη δύναμις μετὰ TOV πατέρα πάντων Kai δεσπότην θεόν (and similariy 
A fol. i. 12, 13} ii. 13); Euseb. De Eccl. Theol. i. 20, p. 93 c., κύριος τῶν ὅλων μετὰ τὴ" 
ἐπὶ πάντων θεόν. The prepositions κατά and μετά are very often confounded in MSS. by δὰ 
error of the scribe, the abbreviations for the two words being similar. (Montfaucon, Palaeogr. 
Graeca, p. 345; Sabas, Sfecim. Palaeogr., Suppl., tabb. xi., xii.) See Bast ad Gregor. 
Corinth. ed. Schaefer (1811), pp. 09, 405, 825, and Irmisch’s Herodian iv. 1638, who gives eight 
examples. Cobet remarks: ‘‘ Qui codices Graecos triverunt sciunt κατά et μετά compendiose 
sic scribi ut vix oculis discerni possint. Passim confundi solere sciunt omnes.”’-— Variae Lec- 
ziones, in Mnemosyne vii. 391. 

Dr. Gifford may prefer Burton’s view, who says (Testimonies, etc., 2d ed., p. 293) it “‘can 
only mean ‘ God after the pattern of the God of the universe.’’’? It would take too much space 
to give my reasons for differing from him. Martini says (p. 175), ‘‘ Entweder ist es 5. v. a. per 
deum [there is some mistake here, perhaps only a comma omitted] cuzus auctor est summus deus, 
oder secundum voluntatem summi det.’ Mosheim renders it xaéchst; Rossler, zach ; Cromoie 
and Professor Kennedy, ext to. These translations rather represent μετά, but show what the 
translators thought the context to require, and may thus be regarded as confirming my conjecture, 


RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS IX, 5 429 


“inferior” to the Father (imodeéorepoc), as he elsewhere speaks 
of him as ἐλάττων πρὸς τὸν πατέρα and δεύτερος τοῦ πατρός (De Princip. 
i. 3, $5), and says that “he is excelled by the Father as much 
as (or even more than) he and the Holy Spirit excel other 
beings,” and that “in no respect does he compare with the 
Father ’”’ (οὐ συγκρίνεται κατ᾽ οὐδὲν τῷ πατρί, 771 Joan. tom. Xili. c. 25, 
Opp. iv. 235). It is not easy to believe that one who uses 
such language as this applied the last clause of Rom. ix. 5 
to Christ. 

In the passage Cont. Cels. viii. 4, I perceive no ground for 
regarding the titles τὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσι θεὸν τῶν θεῶν͵ and τὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσι κύριον τῶν 
κυρίων, as denoting equal dignity. The latter, high as it is, 
as applied to Christ, is far from proving that he might be 
called ἐπὶ πάντων θεός. The last sentence quoted by Dr. Gifford 
shows the distinction. The purport of it is that “he has 
risen to the GoD OVER ALL who worships Hr undividedly ”’ 
(this is said in opposition to the worship of the heathen, dis- 
tributed among many gods), “through him who alone leads 
men to God, namely, the Son, the God-Logos and Wisdom,” 
etc. The relation of the Son to the Father, from whom he 
has derived all that makes him an object of worship, and 
whose image he is, is such, according to Origen, that the 
relative worship paid to him is all wltimately paid to the 
God over all, the Father, who alone is the Supreme Object 
of worship. 

Still less, if possible, is the quotation from Cozz. Cels. viii. 
12 to Dr. Gifford’s purpose. It teaches, he says, ‘‘that 
Christ is to be worshipped as being One with the Supreme 
God.” “One” in what sense? Dr. Gifford omits the 
words that immediately follow, in which Origen cites Acts 
iv. 32, “ And the multitude of believers were of one heart 
and one soul,” as explaining the meaning of the words, “I 
and the Father are one.” * A little further on Origen says : 
“We worship, then, the Father of the Truth, and the Son, 
who is the Truth ;+ two distinct persons, but one in agree- 


*So in his Comm. in Joan. tom. xiii. c. 34, Opp. iv 245, Origen explains John x. 30 as 
relating to the unity of w#/7 between the Father and the Son. 

+ Comp. Origen, 7x Joan, tom. 11. c. 18, Opp. iv. 76>: ὁ πατὴρ τῆς ἀληθείας θεὸς πλείων 
ἐστι καὶ μείζων ἢ [we should read, perhaps, 77 ἡ] ἀλῴθεια: “the God who is the Father of the 
Truth is more and greater than the Truth.”’ 


430 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


ment of thought, and in harmony of feeling, and in same- 
ness of will,” ὄντα dbo τῇ ὑποστάσει πράγματα, ἕν δὲ τῇ ὁμονοίᾳ, καὶ TH συμφωνίᾳ, 
καὶ τῇ ταυτότητι τοῦ βουλήματος ; so that he who has seen the Son 
...has seen in him, who is the image of God, God him- 
Belt.’ = 

In the view of Origen, the moral union between the 
Father and the Son was perfect, so that the worship of the 
Son, regarded as the image of the Father, reflecting his 
moral perfections, his goodness and righteousness and truth, 
is virtually the worship of the Father himself; it terminates 
in him as its ultimate object. (See Cozt. Cels. vill. 13, ad fin.) 

Origen’s ideas respecting the worship of the Son appear 
distinctly in what he says of prayer. In his treatise on 
Prayer, he teaches that prayer, properly speaking, is “ per- 
haps never to be offered to any originated being, ot even to 
Christ himself, but only to the God and Father of all, to 
whom our Saviour himself prayed and teaches us to pray.” 
(De Orat, c. 15; Opp. i. 222.) There is much, more/to the 
same purpose. In his later work against Celsus, he says 
that “every supplication and prayer, and intercession, and 
thanksgiving is to be sent up to the Gop OVER ALL, through 
the High Priest, who is above all angels, the living Logos, 
and God. But we shall also supplicate the Logos himself, 
and make requests to him, and give thanks and pray, if we 
are able to distinguish between prayer properly speaking 
and prayer in a looser sense, ἐὰν δυνώμεθα κατακούειν τῆς περὶ προσευχῆς 
κυριολεξίας καὶ καταχρήσεως.; (Cont. Cels. v. 4, and see also v. 5, 
Opp. i. 580.) Compare Cond. Cels. viii. 26: “We ought to 
pray only to the Gop OVER ALL; yet it is proper to pray 
also to the only-begotten, the first-born of the whole creation, 
the Logos of God, and to request him, as a High Priest, to 
carry up our prayers which reach him to Huis Gop and our 
God.” So Cont. Cels. viii. 13: We worship the one God, 


*It may be well to notice here an ambiguous sentence in this section, which has been trans- 
lated, incorrectly, I think, ‘‘ We worship one God, therefore, the Father and the Son, as we 
have explained.” The Greek is, ἕνα οὖν θεόν, ὡς ἀποδεδώκαμεν, τὸν πατέρα L] καὶ τὸν 
υἱὸν θεραπείομεν.. We should, I believe, place a comma after πατέρα, and translate, ‘‘ We 
worship, therefore, one God, the Father, and the Son.’ This is confirmed by what follows, cited 
above, and by the language used in the next section (c. 13): διὸ τὸν ἔνα θεὸν, καὶ τὸν ἔνα 
υἱὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ λόγον καὶ εἰκόνα... σέβομεν. 


RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS Ix. 5 431 


and the one Son, who is his Logos and Image, with suppli- 
cations and petitions as we are able, bringing our prayers to 
the GOD OF .THE UNIVERSE ¢hrough his only-begotten Son, 
to whom we first offer them; beseeching him, who is the 
propitiation for our sins, to present, as High Priest, our 
prayers and sacrifices and intercessions to the GoD OVER 
ἌΡΤΙ * 

I do not see how any one can read these passages and 
regard it as probable, much less as certazz, that Origen πη. 
derstood Paul in Rom. ix. § to describe Christ as ὁ ὦ» ἐπὶ 
πάντων θεός, εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. It is clear, at any rate, that he 
did not understand the passage as Dr. Gifford does (Letter, 
p. 3), as “a testimony to the co-EQUAL GODHEAD of the Son.” 

Dr. Gifford’s argument from the Selecta in Threnos, iv. 5, 
rests on a false assumption, which has been already suffi- 
ciently remarked upon. 

\ 
PUNCTUATION IN MANUSCRIPTS. 

On p. 36 of Dr. Gifford’s Letter, speaking of punctuation 
in MSS., he observes that “it is universally acknowledged 
that no marks of punctuation or division were in use till 
long after the days of St. Paul.” This remark, if intended 
to apply to Greek MSS. in general, is inaccurate, and indi- 
cates that Dr. Gifford has been misled by untrustworthy 
authorities. If it is intended to apply to New Testament 
MSS., I do not see how the fact can be proved, as we pos- 
sess no MSS. of the New Testament of earlier date than 
the fourth century. But the essential point in Dr. Gifford’s 
remarks is, that the punctuation in MSS. of the New Testa- 
ment is of πὸ authority. This is very true; and it should 
have been remembered by the many commentators (includ- 
ing Dr. Gifford) who have made the assertion (very incorrect 
in point of fact), that a stop after σάρκα is found in only two 
or three inferior MSS. in Rom. ix. 5, as if that were an argu- 
ment against a doxology here. 


*It may be worth while to note that Origen (Comz. Ceds. viii. 9) justifies the honor paid to the 
Son on the ground that he receives it by the appointment of the Father (ἀποδείξομεν ὕτι ἀπὸ 
θεοῦ δέδοται αὐτῷ TO τιμᾶσίιαι, citing John ν. 23), and is declared by God to be ἄξιον τῆς 
δευτερευούσης μετὰ τὸν θεὸν τῶν ὅλων... τιμῆς. (Cont. Cels. ν. 57.) 


432 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


The results of some recent investigation in regard to this 
matter are given in our Journal for 1882, p. 161 [p. 406f. 
above]. The investigation has since, through the kindness 
of Dr. C. R. Gregory, been carried somewhat farther. I can 
now name, besides the uncials A, B, C, L, the first three of 
which are not “inferior MSS.,” at least twenty-six cursives 
which have a stop after σάρκα, the same in general which they 
have after αἰῶνας or ᾿Αμήν. In all probability, the result of an 
examination would show that three-quarters or four-fifths of 
the cursive MSS. containing Rom. ix. 5 have a stop after 
σάρκα. 

In regard to Codex A, Canon Cook thinks the testimony 
of Dr. Vance Smith, whom Dr. Gifford cites as saying that 
the stop after σάρκα is ‘evidently a prima manu,” is “ not 
verified or likely to be verified.” * Many others will ques- 
tion the testimony of a Unitarian heretic. It would have 
been only fair, therefore, to have added the fact, mentioned 
on p. 150 of the Journal [p. 407 above], that Dr. Sanday 
agrees with him. I would add that I am informed, on good 
authority, that Dr. Scrivener has examined the MS. at this 
place with the same result. 

The whole matter is in itself unimportant; but it is 
important that writers like Dean Burgon should cease im- 
posing upon unlearned readers by making reckless asser- 
tions about it. 


VAN HENGEL ON THE τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. 


As regards the limitation τὸ κατὰ σάρκα (Letter, Ὁ. 38 f.), the 
examples cited by Van Hengel from Plato’s Phzlebus (c. 7, 
p. 17°) and Isocrates (Ad Micocl. c. 29 al. 30) in support of 
his view, and urged by Dr. Gifford in opposition to it, are, 
I think, not to the purpose on either side. The formule 
“A and also B,” and “not only A, but B,” into which the 
quotations, so far as they bear on the matter, may be re- 
solved, do not express “antithesis,” but agreement. Dr. 
Gifford’s citation from Demosthenes (Cont. Eubul. p. 12209, 1. 
14) furnishes no analogy to the τὸ κατὰ σάρκα here, and is wholly 


*Canon Cook, Revised Version of the First Three Gospels, p. 1943 comp. p. 167. 


RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS IX. 5 433 


irrelevant, for two reasons: (1) because the τὸ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς [4]. ἡμᾶς] 
is introduced with a μέν, which of course leads one to expect 
an antithesis, such as follows, expressed by δέ; and (2) be- 
cause the τὸ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς is probably to be regarded as the direct 
object of the verb θαρρεῖν, used here, as often, transitively, 
like its opposite φοβεῖσθα. Van Hengel’s rule relates only to 
clauses like τὸ κατ’ ἐμέ, τὸ ἐξ ὑμῶν, in which the article τό with its 
adjunct is neither the object nor the subject of a verb, or at 
least of any verb expressed. (See Van Hengel, Juterp. Ep. 
Pauli ad Rom. ii. 348.) 


IRENAUS. 


As to the quotation of Rom. ix. αὶ by Irenzus (Haer. 111. 
16, ὃ 3), I must still, for the reasons assigned in the Journal 
(p. 390 above), regard it as doubtful whether he referred the 
last clause of the verse to Christ. In opposition to the 
Gnostics who held that the Aton Chrzst first descended upon 
Jesus at his baptism, Irenzeus is quoting passages which, like 
é dv ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, speak of the Christ as born, But why, 
Dr. Gifford asks, does he quote the remainder of the passage, 
if it had nothing to do with his argument? (Leézer, Ὁ. 42.) I 
answer, he may well have included it in his quotation, if he 
regarded it as a doxology, or gave it Dr. Kennedy’s con- 
struction, for the same purpose as Photius has quoted it in 
his work against the Manichzans (see Journal, p. 138 f. [p. 
393 above]); namely, as confirming the doctrine insisted on 
throughout his book, that the God of the Jews, the God of 
the Old Testament, was not, as all the Gnostics contended, 
a being inferior to the Supreme God, but the God over all. 
So understood, it would agree with the language which 
Irenzeus uses so often elsewhere, describing the Father as 
the God over all, while he nowhere, to my knowledge, speaks 
of the Son as God over all. 1 admit that Irenzeus may have 
applied the last clause to Christ, separating the θεός from ὁ ὧν 
ἐπὶ πάντων as a distinct predicate; but I perceive nothing 
which determines with certainty the construction he gave 
it. The whole question is of the least possible consequence. 
One who could treat 2 Cor. iv. 4 as he has done (1467. 111. 7, 


434 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


§ 1; iv. 29, § 2) is certainly no authority in exegesis in a 
case where doctrinal prejudice could have an influence. 

Dr. Gifford thinks that Irenaeus “most probably” refers 
to Rom. ix. 5 when he says (Hae. iii. 12, § 9) that the mys- 
tery which was made known to Paul by revelation was that 
ὁ παθὼν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου οὗτος Kipiog τῶν πάντων καί βασιλεὺς Kai θεὸς καὶ 
κριτής ἐστω. He omits the words that zamediately follow, pre- 
served in the old Latin version: “ab eo qui est omnium 
Deus accipiens potestatem, quoniam subiectus factus est 
usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis,’ where Christ as 
θεός is distinguished from him who is “omnium Deus,” from 
whom he received his power. This does not go far towards 
proving that Irenzeus would call Christ “God over all.” I 
observe incidentally that Irenzeus’s explanation of “the mys- 
tery which was made known to Paul by revelation” (Eph. 
iii. 3) differs widely from that which Paul himself gives 
(Eph. 411.6 if). 


CLEMENT OF ROME. 


Passing to p. 41 of Dr. Gifford’s Letter, I remark that if 
Clement of Rome in the passage cited (Cov. c. 32) had Rom. 
ix. 5 in mind, as he probably did, and regarded the last 
clause as applicable to Christ, it would have been altogether 
to his purpose to have added it to the τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, his pur- 
pose being to magnify the distinctions bestowed by God 
on the patriarch Jacob. Dr. Gifford will not, I think, find 
many who regard the simple expression “the Lord Jesus” 
as equivalent to ‘ He who is over all, God blessed for ever”’; 
it is rather the equivalent of the Pauline ὁ χριστός, a title 
which, when it denotes the Messiah, involves lordship. So 
far, then, from inferring, as Dr. Gifford does, from this pas- 
sage of Clement, that he “probably” (Letter, Ὁ. 65) applied 
the last clause to Christ, I should infer from his omitting it, 
where, thus understood, it would have been so much to his 
purpose, that he probably did zot. This presumption would 
be confirmed by the way in which he speaks of Christ, and 
distinguishes him from God, throughout his Epistle. 


RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS IX. 5 435 


THE NEWLY DISCOVERED QUOTATION OF ROMANS IX. 5 BY 
IREN AUS. 


Dr. Gifford (Letter, p. 41) adduces a passage from Ire- 
nzus, “which no one,” he observes, ‘so far as I know, has 
hitherto noticed in this connection. Prof. Abbot indeed 
says (p. 136) that the only place where Irenzeus has quoted 
om. ix. 5 is Ziger. in) τὸ (a/. 18); 8 9. Alas!) for the oman 
who ventures on that spirited but dangerous hobby, the uni- 
versal negative. These are the words of Irenzeus in Fragm. 
XVil. (Stieren) : ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς προετυπώθη Kal ἐπεγνώσθη καὶ ἐγεννήθη. 
ἐν μὲν γὰρ τῷ ᾿Ιωσὴφ προετυπώθη: ἐκ δὲ τοῦ Λευὶ καὶ τοῦ ᾿Ιούδα τὸ κατὰ σάρκα 
ὡς βασιλεὺς καὶ ἱερεὺς ἐγεννήθη." 

Dr. Gifford has fortunately given the Greek of the passage 
that is to put me to shame, and I have not the slightest ap- 
prehension that any reader of his Zet¢er will call the frag- 
ment of Irenzeus which he cites a quotation of Rom. ix. 5; 
at the very utmost, it could only be termed an allusion to 
that passage. The editor of the Σειρά or Catena from which 
this fragment is taken (Nicephorus Theotoki), and the edi- 
tors and translators of Irenaeus, as Grabe, Massuet, Stieren, 
Migne, Harvey, Roberts and Rambaut, and Keble, though 
they all refer in the margin to supposed quotations, have 
failed. to make any reference: here/to’Rom,ix, 5. If it be a 
quotation, the discovery of the fact belongs probably to Dr. 
Gifford alone. It will be observed that Dr. Gifford spaces 
the letters in ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστός as if they must be regarded as 
quoted from Rom. ix. 5. He does not note the fact that this 
fragment of Irenzus is part of a comment on Deut. xxvii. 
12, and is given in a fuller form in a Latin translation by 
Franciscus Zephyrus or Zephyrius (= Zafiri) in his edition 
of a Catena on Deuteronomy, as cited by Grabe in his edi- 
tion of Irenzeus (p. 469). This reads: “ Notandum, benedi- 
cendi munus in TRIBUBUS demandatum, EX QUIBUS CHRISTUS 
designatus cognoscitur et generatur,” etc., and shows how 
little the ἐξ ὧν, κι τ... has to do with Rom. ix. 5, and how 
groundless is the inference which Dr. Gifford draws from 
this accidental coincidence of expression. 


436 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Long before Dr. Gifford’s Letter was published I had 
noted this fragment, together with a similar passage in Ire- 
nzeus (Haer. iv. 4, § 1), as examples of τὸ κατὰ σάρκα without an 
antithesis expressed, and had caused them to be printed 
among the Additions and Corrections in the number of the 
Journal for 1882, p. 160, referring to the Journal for 1881, 
p. 101. So far as they go, they both, I think, favor my view 
of the controverted passage rather than Dr. Gifford’s. If 
they are to be regarded as quotations of Rom. ix. 5, they 
favor it more than I had supposed. 


POSITION OF εὐλογητός. 


In Dr. Gifford’s remarks on the position of εὐλογητός (Letter, 
Ῥ. 54 f.), he maintains that in the text of the Septuagint, in 
Ps. lxviii. 20 (Sept. lxvii. 19), εὐλογητός should be read but 
once, and connected with what follows. For this, so far as 
I can ascertain, he has the authority of only two unimpor- 
tant cursive MSS. (Nos. 183, 202),— in which the omission 
of one εὐλογητός is readily explained as accidental, on account 
of the homeoteleuton or dittography,— in opposition to all the 
other known MSS. of the Psalms, more than a hundred in 
number, including the uncials, among them δὶ and B of the 
fourth century, and the Verona MS. of the fifth or sixth. 
(The Alexandrian MS. and the Ziirich Psalter are mutilated 
here.) The omission of the first εὐλογητός, moreover, leaves 
the κύριος ὁ θεός simply hanging in the air, without any con- 
struction. To adopt such a reading in the face of such evi- 
dence is to do violence to all rational principles of textual 
criticism. The difference between the LXX and the He- 
brew is easily explained by the supposition that in the 
Hebrew copy used by the translators, the 2 was repeated 
(which might easily have happened), or at least that they 
thought it ought to be. 

Dr. Gifford takes no notice of my explanation of the 
veason for the ordinary position of such words as εὐλογητός, 
εὐλογημένος, ἐπικατάρατος, etc., in doxologies, benedictions, and 
maledictions, or of the exceptions which I adduce (save Ps. 


RECENT DISCUSSIONS OF ROMANS ΙΧ. 5 437 


Ixvili. 20, which I waive), or of my argument that, if we take 
the last clause as a doxology, the position of εὐλογητός after 
the subject is not only fully accounted for, but is rather 
required by the very same law of the Greek language which 
governs all the examples that have been alleged against the 
doxological construction. (/ournal, pp. 103-111.) As this 
view is supported by so eminent a grammarian as Winer, to 
say nothing of Meyer, Fritzsche, and other scholars, it seems 
to me that it deserved consideration. 


DIFFERENT SENSES OF εὐλογητός. 


On p. 56 of Dr. Gifford’s Letter, he gives as examples of 
the use and meaning of the word εὐλογητός the expressions 
“Blessed be God” and ‘Blessed be thou of the Lord,” and 
remarks that “Dr. Abbot ‘overlooks the fact’ that, what- 
ever difference there may be, it lies wot in the sense of the 
word εὐλογητός, but in the different relations of the persons 
blessing and blessed.” I must confess that I have over- 
looked the fact, if it be a fact; and must also confess my 
belief that not a few of Dr. Gifford’s readers will be sur- 
prised at the proposition that there is no difference in the 
sense of the word εὐλογητός when, applied to God, it means 
“praised” or “worthy to be praised,’ and when, applied to 
men, it means “prospered” or “blessed” by God. The fact 
on which Dr. Gifford seems to lay great stress, that εὐλογητός 
in these different senses represents the same Hebrew word, 
will not weigh much with those who consider that many 
words in common use have several very different meanings 
in Hebrew as well as in other languages. The two mean- 
ings are as distinct as those of εὐλογία in the sense of laws, 
laudatio, celebratio (Grimm, Lex. s.v. εὐλογία, No. 1), and of 
bonum, benefictum (Grimm, 2dza., No. 5). 

The very common use of εὐλογητός in doxologies to God 
seems to have led the Septuagint translators to restrict its 
application in the sense of “praised,” or rather “worthy to 
be praised,” to the Supreme Being. To this perhaps the 
only exception is in the expression εὐλογητὸς ὁ τρόπος σου in 


N 


438 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


1 Sam. xxv. 33. In the New Testament, apart from the pas- 
sage in debate, its application is restricted to God, ‘‘the God 
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.’”’ My point is that 
whatever force there may be in the argument from this ex- 
tensive usage in favor of its application to God rather than 
to Christ in Rom. ix. 5, it is not diminished in the slightest 
degree by the fact that in a few passages of the LXX the 
word is applied to men in the very different sense of “ pros- 
pered” or “recipients of blessings.” 2,46. benefits, from God. 


I have now, I believe, taken notice of all the points of im- 
portance in which Dr. Gifford has criticised my statements, 
or statements which he has ascribed to me. I am not with. 
out hope that in a future edition of his pamphlet he may see 
reason for modifying some of his remarks, and for giving © 
more fully the context of some of his quotations. 


VIELE. 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF FIPRUS I tr: 


[From the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1881.] 


The Greek reads as follows: προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα 
καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ Kat σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (or 
Χριστοῦ ᾽Τησοῦ). 

Shall we translate, “the appearing of the glory of our 
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ”? or, “the appearing 
of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”? 

It was formerly contended by Granville Sharp, and after- 
wards by Bishop Middleton, that the absence of the Greek 
article before owrpoc in Tit. ii. 13 and 2 Pet. i. 1, and before 
θεοῦ in Eph. v. 5, is alone sufficient to prove that the two 
appellatives connected by «ai belong to one subject.* ‘It is 
impossible,” says Middleton in his note on Tit. 11. 13, “to 
understand θεοῦ and σωτῆρος otherwise than of one person.” 
This ground is now generally abandoned, and it is admitted 
that, svammatically, either construction is possible. I need 


*Sharp applied his famous rule also to 2 Thess. i. 12, but Middleton thinks that this text 
affords no certain evidence in his favor. Winoer disposes of it summarily as merely a case in 
which κύριος is used for 6 κύριος, the word κύριος taking, in a measure, the character of a 
proper name. In2z Thess. i. 11, ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν denotes God in distinction from ‘‘ our Lord [6557 
(ver. 1); itis therefore unnatural in the extreme to take this title in the last clause of the very 
same sentence (ver. 12) asa designation of Christ. We may then reject without hesitatioa Gran- 
ville Sharp’s construction, which in fact has the support of but few respectable scholars. 

Astor Tim. v. 21 and 2 Tim. iv. 1, it is enough to refer to the notes of Bishop Middleton 
and Bishop Ellicott on the form-r passage. Compare the remarkable various reading in Gal. il. 
20, adopted by Lachmann and Tregelies (text), but not by Tischendorf or Westcott and Hort,— 
ἐν πίστει ζῶ TH τοῦ θεοῦ Kai Χριστοῦ. 

In Erh. v. 5, ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ, the Χριστοῦ and θεοῦ are regarded 
ac denoting distinct subjects by a large majority of the best commentators, as De Wette, Meyer, 
Olshausen, Meier, Holzhausen, Flatt, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleck, Ewald, Schenkel, 
Braune and Riddle (in Lange’s Comm., Amer. trans.), Conybeare, Bloomfield, Ellicott, Eadie, 
Alford, Canon Barry in Ellicott’s WV. 7. Comm., and Prebendary Meyrick in “ the Speaker’s 
Commentary ”’ (1881). 

In the Revised New Testament, the construction contended for so strenuously by Middleton 
in Eph. v. 5, and by Sharp in 2 Thess. i. 12, has not been deemed worthy of notice. 


440. CRITICAL ESSAYS 


only refer to Winer, Stuart, Buttmann, T. S. Green, and 
S. G. Green among the grammarians, and to Alford, Ellicott, 
Bishop Jackson, and other recent commentators.* It will 
be most convenient to assume, provisionally, that this view 
is correct; and to consider first the exegetical grounds for 
preferring G6ne construction to the other. But as some still 
think that the omission of the article, though not decisive of 
the question, affords a presumption in favor of the construc- 
tion which makes τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ a designation of Christ, a few 
remarks upon this point will be made in Note A, at the end 
of this paper. It may be enough to say here that θεοῦ has 
already an attributive, so that the mind naturally rests for a 
moment upon τὸν μεγάλου θεοῦ as a subject by itself; and that 
the addition of ‘Ijoov Χριστοῦ to σωτῆρος ἡμῶν distinguishes the 
person so clearly from τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ͵ according to Paul’s con- 
stant use of language, that there was no need of the article 
for that purpose. 

The question presented derives additional interest from 
the fact tiat, in the recent Revision of the English transla- 
tion of the New Testament, the English Company have 
adopted in the text the first of the constructions mentioned 
above, placing the other in the margin; while the American 
Company, by a large majority, preferred to reverse these 
positions 

I will first examine the arguments of Bishop Ellicott for 
the construction which makes τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ an appellation of 
Christ. They are as follows :— 

“ (4) ἐπιφάνεια is a term specially and peculiarly applied to 
the Son, and never to the Father.” The facts are these. In 
one passage (2 Tim. i. 10) the word ἐπιφάνεια is applied to 
Christ’s first advent ; in four to his second advent (2 Thess. 
11. 8; 1 Tim. vi. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8); and as ἐπιφάνεια denotes 
a visible manifestation, it may be thought that an ἐπιφάνεια of 

ἢ 


*See Winer, Gram. § 19, 5, Anm. 1, p. 123, 7te Aufl. (p. 130 Thayer’s trans., p. 162 Moul- 
ton); Stuart, 820). Repos. April, 1834, vol. iv. p. 322 f.3 A. Buttmann, Gram. § 125, 14-17, 
pp. 97-109, Thayer’s trans.; T. 5. Green, Gram. of the N. T. Dialect (1842), pp. 205-219, or 
new ed. (1862), pp. 67-75; S. G. Green, Handbook to the Gram. of the Greek Test., p. 2163; and 
Alford on Tit. ii. 13. Alford has some good remarks on the passaze, but I find no sufficient proof 
of his statement that σωτήρ had become in the N. T. ‘‘a quasi proper name.”’ 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II. 13 441 


God, the Father, “whom no man hath seen nor can see,” 
could not be spoken of. 

But this argument is founded on a misstatement of the 
question. The expression here is not “the appearing of the 
great God,” but “the appearing of the glory of the great 
God,” which is a very different thing. When our Saviour 
himself had said, “The Son of man shall come 7 the glory 
of his Father, with his angels” (Matt. xvi. 27, comp. Mark 
viii. 38), or as Luke expresses it, “in his own glory, azd the 
glory of the Father, and of the holy angels ” (ch. ix. 26), can 
we doubt that Paul, who had probably often heard Luke’s 
report of these words, might speak of “‘the appearing of the 
glory” of the Father, as well as of Christ, at the second 
advent ? * 

This view is confirmed by the representations of the 
second advent given elsewhere in the New Testament, and 
particularly by 1 Tim. vi. 14-16. The future ἐπιφάνεια of 
Christ was not conceived of by Paul as independent of God, 
the Father, any more than his first ἐπιφάνεια or advent, but as 
one ‘which in his own time the blessed and only Potentate, 
the King of kings and Lord of lords, who only hath immor- 
tality, dwelling in light unapproachable, whom no man hath 
seen nor can see, shall show” (deise:). The reference is to 
the joint manifestation of the glory of God and of Christ at 
the time when, to use the language of the writer to the 
Hebrews (i. 6), “he again bringeth [or shall have brought] 
the first-begotten into the world, and saith, Let all the 
angels of God pay him homage.” + That God and Christ 
should be associated in the references to the second advent, 


* Even if the false assumption on which the argument is founded were correct, that is, if the 
expression here used were τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ Kai σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ, the argument would have little or no weight. The fact that ἐπιφάνεια is used four 
times of Christ in relation to the second advent would be very far from proving that it might not 
be so used of God, the Father, also. Abundant examples may be adduced from Jewish writers to 
show that any extraordinary display of divine power, whether exercised directly and known only 
by its effects, or through an intermediate visible agent, as an angel, might be called an ἐπιφάνεια, 
an “appearing’’ or “‘ manifestation’? of God. The word is used in the same way in heathen 
literature to denote any supposed divine interposition in human affairs, whether accompanied by 
a visible appearance of the particular deity concerned, or not. See Note B. 


+ See also Acts iii. 20: ‘‘ —and that he may sezd the Christ who hath been appointed for you, 
even Jesus.’’ 


442 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


that God should be represented as displaying his power and 
glory at the ἐπιφάνεια of Christ, accords with the account given 
elsewhere of the accompanying events. The dead are to be 
raised at the second advent, a glorious display of divine 
power, even as Christ is said to have been “raised from the 
dead by the glory of the Father’’ (Rom. vi. 4). But it is ex- 
pressly declared by Paul that, “as Jesus died and rose again, 
even so shall Gop, through Jesus, bring with him them that 
have fallen asleep” (1 Thess. iv. 14; comp. Phil. iii. 21) ; and 
again, ‘“‘Gop both raised the Lord, and will raise up us by his 
power” (1 Cor. vi. 14). There is to bea general judgment 
at the second advent; but Paul tells us that “God hath ap- 
pointed a day in which ne will judge the world in righteous- 
ness 6y a man whom he hath ordained” (Acts xvii. 31), or, 
as it is elsewhere expressed, “the day in which HE will judge 
the secrets of men, ¢hrough Jesus Christ’’ (Rom. ii. 16, 
comp. ver. 5, 6); and that ‘we shall all stand before the 
judgment seat of Gop” (Rom. xiv. 10). So the day referred 
to is not only called “the day of the Lord Jesus” (t Cor. i. 
Sv. 5; 21.008 1. 14), or “the day ‘of Christ: jesus ΒΝ 
6), or “the day of Christ” (Phil. i. 10, ii. 16), but “the day 
of Gop” (2 Pet. iii. 12). Here, as throughout the economy 
of salvation, there is εἷς θεός, ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα, καὶ εἷς κύριος, 
Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα (1 Cor. viii. 6). 

It appears to me, then, that Bishop Ellicott’s “ palmary 
argument,” as he calls it, derives all its apparent force from 
a misstatement of the question; and when we consider the 
express language of Christ respecting his appearing in the 
glory of his Father, the express statement of Paul that this 
ἐπιφάνεια Of Christ is one which God, the Father, will sow 
(t Tim. vi. 15), and the corresponding statement of the 
writer to the Hebrews (i. 6, ‘when he again bringeth,” etc.) ; 
when we consider that in the concomitants of the second 
advent, the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment ot 
men, in which the glory of Christ will be displayed, he is 
everywhere represented as acting, not independently of God, 
the Father, but in union with him, as his agent, so that 
“the Father is glorified in the Son,” can we find the slight- 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II. 13 443 


est difficulty in supposing that Paul here describes the 
second advent as an “appearing of the g/ory of the great 
God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ”? 

(ὁ) Bishop Ellicott’s second argument is “that the imme- 
diate context so specially relates to our Lord.” He can 
only refer to ver. 14, ‘““who gave himself for us,” etc. The 
argument rests on the assumption, that when a writer 
speaks of two persons, A and B, there is something strange 
or unnatural in adding a predicate to B alone. If it is not 
instantly clear that such an assumption contradicts the most 
familiar facts of language, one may compare the mention of 
cod and Christ: together in Gali 1 2; 4, and! 1, lima, 15 κ᾿ Ὁ 
and the predicate that in each case follows the mention of 
the latter. The passage in Galatians reads: “Grace to you 
and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, 
who gave himself for us, that he might deliver us,” etc. 

(c) The third point is “that the following mention of 
Christ’s giving Himself up for us, of His abasement, does 
fairly account for St. Paul’s ascription of a title, otherwise 
unusual, that specially and antithetically marks His glory.” 
— “Otherwise wzusual” ! Does Bishop Ellicott mean that 
“the great God” is simply an “unusual” title of Christ in 
the New Testament? But this is not an argument, but only 
an answer to an objection, which we shall consider by and 
by. It is obvious that what is said in ver. 14 can in itself 
afford no proof or presumption that Paul in what precedes 
has called Christ “the great God.’’ He uses similar lan- 
guage in many passages (e.g. those just cited under 4 from 
Galoi-3, 4.and 1 Tim. i. 5, 6), im “which Christ is clearly 
distinguished from God. 

(4) The fourth argument is “that μεγάλου would seem 
uncalled for if applied to the Father.” It seems to me, on 
the contrary, to have a solemn impressiveness, suitable to 
the grandeur of the event referred to. It condenses into 
one word what is more fully expressed by the accumulation 
of high titles applied to God in connection with the same 
subject in 1 Tim. vi. 14-16, suggesting that the event is 
one in which the power and majesty of God will be con- 


444 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


spicuously displayed. The expression “the great God” 
does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, but it is 
not uncommon in the Old Testament and later Jewish writ- 
ings as a designation of Jehovah. See Note C. p. 456. 

(e) Bishop Ellicott’s last argument is that ‘‘apparently 
two of the ante-Nicene (Clem. Alexand. Protrept. 7 [ed. 
Pott.] and Hippolytus, quoted by Words.) and the great 
bulk of post-Nicene writers concurred in this interpreta- 
tion.”— As to this, I would say that Clement of Alexandria 
does not cite the passage in proof of the deity of Christ, and 
there is nothing to show that he adopted the construction 
which refers the τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ to him.* Hippolytus (De 
Antichristo, c. 67), in an allusion to the passage, uses the 
expression ἐπιφάνειαν Tov θεοῦ Kai σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Of Christ, which may 
seem to indicate that he adopted the construction just men- 
tioned. But it is to be observed that he omits the τῆς δόξης, 
and the μεγάλον, and the ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ after σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, so that it 
is not certain that if he had quoted the passage fully, instead 
of merely borrowing some of its language, he would have 
applied all the terms to one subject. My principal reason 
for doubt is, that he has nowhere in his writings spoken of 
Christ as ὁ μέγας Ode, with or without ἡμῶν, and that it would 
hardly have been consistent with his theology to do this, 
holding so strongly as he did the doctrine of the subordina- 
tion of the Son. 

It is true that many writers of the fourth century and 
later apply the passage to Christ. At that period, and 
earlier, when θεός had become a common appellation of 
Christ, and especially when he was very often called “ our 
God” or “our God and Saviour,” the construction of Tit. ii. 


* Winstanley well remarks, in his valuable essay on the use of the Greek article in the New 
Testament, that ‘the observation of Whitby that Clem. Alex. quotes this text of St. Paul, when 
he is asserting the divinity of Christ, if it m2an that he quotes it as an argument, or proof, is 
amistake. Clemens is all along speaking of a past appearance only, and therefore he begins his 
quotation with a former verse, ἡ yipic Tov θεοῦ . . . etc., and then proceeds τοῦτό ἐστι TO 
ἄσμα τὸ καινόν [I omit the quotation], etc., so that his authority inclines the other way; for 
he has not appealed to this text, though he had it before him, when he was expressly asserting 
the divinity of Christ, as θεός, and 6 θεὸς λόγος, but not as ὁ μέγας θεός." (Vindication of 
certain Passages in the Common English Version of the N. T., p. 35 £., Amer. ed., Cambridge, 
1819.) 

The supposition of Wordsworth and Bishop Jackson that Ignatius (ΖΛ. c. 1) refers to this 
passage has, so far as I can see, no foundation. 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II. 13 445 


13 which refers the θεοῦ to him would seem the most natural. 
But the W-w Testament use of language is widely different ; 
and on that account a construction which would seem most 
natural in the fourth century, might not even suggest itself 
to a reader of the first century. That the orthodox Fathers 
should give to an ambiguous passage the construction which 
suited their theology and the use of language in their time 
was almost a matter of course, and furnishes no evidence 
that their resolution of the ambiguity is the true one. 

The cases are so numerous in which the Fathers, under 
the influence of a dogmatic bias, have done extreme violence 
to very plain language, that we can attach no weight to their 
preference in the case of a construction really ambiguous, 
like the present. For a notable example of such violence, 
see 2 Cor. iv. 4, ἐν οἷς ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἐτύφλωσεν τὰ νοήματα TOV 
ἀπίστων, where, through fear of Gnosticism or Manichzism, 
Ieenccus. (Hager iit 7, $1 comp. avi’ 20, (al, 28)» ὃ 2ὺ, Ter: 
tullian (Adv, Marc. v. 11), Adamantius or Pseudo-Origen 
(De recta in Deum fide, sect. ii. Orig. Opp. i. 832), Chrysos- 
tom, Theodoret, G£cumenius, Theophylact, Augustine, Pri- 
masius, Sedulius Scotus, Haymo, and others make τοῦ αἰῶνος 
τούτου depend on ἀπίστων instead of ὁ eéc,* a construction which 
we should hardly hesitate to call impossible. 

I have now considered all the arguments of Bishop EIli- 
cott, citing them in full in his own language. It seems to 
me that no one of them has any real weight; and that a 
consideration of his ‘“palmary argument,” which is the one 
mainly urged by the advocates of his construction of the 
passage, really leads to the opposite view. The same is 
true also, I conceive, of his reference to the expression 
“the great God.” 

But there is a new argument which it may be worth while 
to notice. In the English translation of the second edition 
of his Bzblico-Theological Lexicon of N. T. Greek, Cremer 
has added to the article θεός a long note on Tit. 11. 13 which 


* For many of these writers see Whitby, Diss. de Script. Interp. secundum Patrunt Com- 
mentarios, p. 275 f. Alford’s note on this passage has a number of false references, copied 
without acknowledzment from Meyer, and ascribes this interpretation (after Meyer) to Origen, 
who opposes it (Of. 111. 497, ed. De la Rue). 


446 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


is not in the German original, and has made other altera- 
tions in the article. He here contends that τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ 
refers to Christ. He gives up entirely the argument from 
the want of the article before σωτῆρος, on which he had in- 
sisted in the German edition. Nor does he urge the argu- 
ment from the use of ἐπιφάνεια. His only arguments are 
founded on the assertion that ver. 14 “by its form already 
indicates that in ver. 13 only one subject is presented ’—an 
argument which has already been answered (see p. 443, 
under 4), and to which, it seems to me, one cannot reason- 
ably attach the slightest weight —and the fact that ver. 14 
contains the expression λαὸς περιούσιος, “a peculiar people,” an 
expression used in the O. T. to denote the Jewish nation 
as the chosen people, the peculiar possession of God. The 
argument rests on the assumption that because in ver. 14 
the Apostle has transferred this expression to the church of 
Christ, “the great God” in ver. 159. must be taken agua 
predicate of Christ. 

The case seems to me to present no difficulty, and to 
afford no ground for such an inference. The relation of 
Christians to God and Christ is such that, from its very 
nature, the servants of Christ are and are called the servants 
of God, the church of Christ the church of God, the king- 
dom of Christ the kingdom of God. So Christians are and 
are represented as the peculiar people and possession of 
Christ, and at the same time the peculiar people and pos- 
session of God (1 Pet. ii. 9, 10).* If Christians belong to 
Christ, they must belong also to God, the Father, to whom 
Christ ‘himself belongs (1 Cor. ΠῚ 232, “ye are, ΟΠ" 
and Christ is: God's’)... To’ aater; then) that becausemum 
ver. 14 Christians are spoken of as Christ’s peculiar people, 
the title “great God” must necessarily be understood as 
applied to him in ver. 13 is a very extraordinary kind of 
reasoning. 

Such are the arguments which have been urged for the 
translation, “the appearing of the glory of our great God 


*Comp. Clement of Rome, 1 Zp ad Cor. c. 64 (formerly 58): ‘‘ May the All-seeing God 
and Master of Spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ and us through him 
for a peculiar people (εἰς λαὸν περιούσιον), grant,” etc. 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II. 13 447 


and Saviour Jesus Christ.” Let us now consider what is to 
be said for the construction which makes τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ and 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ distinct subjects. 

In the case of a grammatical ambiguity of this kind in any 
classical author, the first inquiry would be, What is the 
usage of the writer respecting the application of the title in 
question? Now this consideration, which certainly is a 
most reasonable one, seems to me here absolutely decisive. 
While the word 46: occurs more than five hundred times in 
the Epistles of Paul, not including the Epistle to the He- 
brews, there is not a single instance in which it is clearly 
applied to Christ.* 

In the case then of a question between two constructions, 
either of which is grammatically possible, should we not 
adopt that which accords with a usage of which we have 
five hundred examples, without one clear exception, rather 
than that which is in opposition to it? The case is made 
still stronger by the fact that we have here not only θεοῦ, but 
μεγάλου θεοῦ. 

Even if we do not regard the Pastoral Epistles as written 
by Paul, and confine our attention to them only, we reach 
the same result. Observe how clearly God, the Father, is 
distinguished from Christ in 1 Tim. i. 1, 2; ii. 3-5; v.21; vi. 


* The passages in the writings of Paul in which the title θεός has ever been supposed to be 
given to Christ are very few, and are all cases of very doubtful construction or doubtful reading. 
Alford finds it given to him only in Rom. ix. 5; but here, as is well known, many of the most 
eminent modern scholars make the last part of the verse a doxology to God, the Father. So, for 
example, Winer, Fritzsche, Meyer, De Wette, Ewald; Tischendorf, Kuenen and Cobet, Butt- 
mann, Hahn (ed. 1861); Professor Jowett, Professor J. H. Godwin, Professor Lewis Campbell 
of the University of St. Andrew’s, the Rev. Dr. B. H. Kennedy, Regius Professor of Greek in 
the University of Cambridge, and Dr. Hort. Of the other passages, Eph. v. 5 and 2 Thess. i. 12 
have already been considered. In x Tim. iii. 16 there is now a general agreement among critical 
scholars that ὃς ἐφανερώθη and not θεὸς ἐφανερώθη is the true reading. In Col. ii. 2, the 
only remaining passage, the text is uncertain; but if we adopt the reading roy μυστηρίου τοῦ 
θεοῖν Χριστοῦ, the most probable construction is that which regards Χριστοῖ; as in apposition 
with μυστηρίου, which is confirmed by Col. 1. 27. This is the view of Bishop Ellicott, Bishop 
Lightfoot, Wieseler (on Gal. i. 1), and Westcott and Hort. Others, as Meyer, Huther, and 
Klopper, translate ‘‘ the mystery of the God of Christ’ (comp. Eph. i. 3, 17, etc.). Steiger takes 
Χριστοῦ as in apposition with τοῦ θεοῦ, and thus finds Christ here called God; but to justify 
his interpretation the Greek should rather be Χριστοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ (comp. De Wette). 

The habitual, and I believe «zform, usage of Paul corresponds with his language x Cor. 
viii. 6. 

Here and elsewhere I intentionally pass by the question whether Paui’s view of the nature of 
Christ and his relation to the Father woud hive allo ved him to designate Christ as ὁ μέγας θεός 
καὶ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν. This would lead to a long discussion of many passages. My argument rests 
on the undisputed facts respecti ig his habi:ual use of language. 


448 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


13-16) 2) Lind) 1.) 2, '8,\93 tv: 13° Tit Le esa(cemp fer ie 
κατ᾽ ἐπιταγήν 1 Tim. i. 1, Rom. xvi. 26), 4; ili. 4-6. Observe, 
particularly, that the expression. “God our Saviour” is ap- 
plied solely to the Father, who is distinguished from Christ 
as our Saviour; God being the primal source of salvation, 
and Christ the medium of communication, agreeably to the 
language of Paul, 2 Cor. v. 18, τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, τοῦ καταλλάξαν- 
τος ἡμᾶς ἑαυτῷ διὰ Χριστοῦ; COMP. I Cor, viti. 6 See “Wun i; 
ii, 345; iv. 10; Tit. ὁ τ; i. 4-0; ‘compare’ also Jade 
25. Such being the marked distinction between θεός and 
Χριστός ἴῃ other passages of these Pastoral Epistles, should 
we not adopt the construction which recognizes the same 
here? 

An examination of the context will confirm the conclu- 
sion at which we have arrived. I have already shown that 
the title “God our Saviour”’ in the Pastoral Epistles belongs 
exclusively to the Father. This is generally admitted ; for 
example, by Bloomfield, Alford, and Ellicott. Now the con- 
nection of ver. 10, in which this expression occurs, with ver. 
II is obviously such, that if θεοῦ denotes the Father in the 
former it must in the latter. Regarding it then as settled 
that θεοῦ in ver. 11 denotes the Father (and Iam not aware 
that it has ever been disputed),* is it not harsh to suppose 
that the θεοῦ in ver. 13, in the latter part of the sentence, 
denotes a different subject from the θεοῦ in ver. 11, at the 
beginning of the same sentence? It appears especially 
harsh, when we notice the beautiful correspondence of 
ἐπιφάνειαν in Ver. 13 with the ἐπεφάνη of ver. 11. This corre- 
spondence can hardly have been undesigned. As the first 
advent of Christ was an appearing or visible manifestation 
of the grace of God, who sent him, so his second advent 
will be an appearing of the glory of God, as well as of Christ. 

To sum up: the reasons which are urged for giving this 
verbally ambiguous passage the construction which makes 
“the great God” a designation of Christ, are seen, when 
examined, to have little or no weight; on the other hand, 


*Tf it should be questioned, all doubt will probably be removed by a comparison of the verse 
with Tix. ‘11. 3-7 and 2 Tim. i. 8. a. 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II. 13 449 


the construction adopted in the common English version, 
and preferred by the American Revisers, is favored, if not 
required, by the context (comparing ver. 13 with ver. 11); 
it perfectly suits the references to the second advent in 
other parts of the New Testament; and it is imperatively 
demanded by a regard to Paul’s wse of language, unless we 
arbitrarily assume here a single exception to a usage of 
which we have more than five hundred examples. 

I might add, though I would not lay much stress on the 
fact, that the principal ancient versions, the Old Latin, the 
Vulgate, the Peshito and Harclean Syriac, the Coptic, and 
the Arabic, appear to have given the passage the construc- 
tion which makes God and Christ distinct subjects. The 
Aethiopic seems to be the only exception. Perhaps, how- 
ever, the construction in the Latin versions should be re- 
garded as somewhat ambiguous. 

Among the modern scholars who have agreed with all the 
old English versions (Tyndale, Coverdale, Cranmer, the Ge- 
nevan, the Bishops’ Bible, the Rhemish, and the Authorized) 
in preferring this construction are Erasmus, Calvin, Luther, 
Grotius, LeClerc, Wetstein, Moldenhawer, Michaelis, Benson, 
Macknight, Archbishop Newcome, Rosenmiiller, Heinrichs, 
Schott, Bretschneider, Neander (Planting and Training of 
the Christian Church, Robinson’s revised trans., p. 468, 
note 7), De Wette (and so Moller in the 3d ed. of De 
Wette 1867), Meyer: (on, Rom.)ix)'s5), Fritzsche (27.:) 27. 
Rom. ii. 265 ff.), Grimm, Baumgarten-Crusius (VV. 7. Gr. 
eds Schott, 1830), Krehl; Hie Fl. ernest: (Yom U7 
sprunge der Siinde, Ὁ. 235 f£.), Schumann (Christus, 1852, 
ii. 580, note), Messner (Die Lehre der Apostel, 1856, p. 236 
f.), Huther, Ewald, Holtzmann (in Bunsen’s Azbelwerk, and 
with more hesitation in his Dze Pastoralbriefe, 1880), Bey- 
schlag (Christol. des N. T., 1866, p. 212, note), Rothe (Dog- 
matik, τι. i. (1870), p. 110, note 3), Conybeare and Howson, 
Alford, Fairbairn, with some hesitation (Zhe Pastoral Epis- 
tles, Edin. 1874, pp. 55, 282-285), Davidson, Prof. Lewis 
Campbell (in the Contemp. Rev. for Aug., 1876), Immer 
(Theol. d. Δ T., 1877, p. 393), W. F. Gess (Christe Person 


450 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


und Werk, Abth. II. (1878), p. 330), in opposition to the 
view expressed in his earlier work, Dze Lehre von der Person 
Christi (1856), p. 88 f., Reuss (Les Epitres Pauliniennes, 
Paris, 1878, ii. 345), Farrar (Life and Work of St. Paul, ii. 
536, cf. p. 615, note 1); and so the grammarians Winer and 
Τ. S. Green (comp. his Zwofold N. T.). In the case of one 
or two recent writers, as Pfleiderer and Weizsacker, who 
have adopted the other construction, there is reason to 
regard them as influenced by their view of the non-Pauline 
authorship of the Epistle, disposing them to find in its 
Christology a doctrine different from that of Paul. 

Very many others, as Heydenreich, Flatt, Tholuck (Com. 
sum Brief an die Romer, 5te Ausg., 1856, p. 482), C. F. 
Schmid (3267. Theol. des N. T., 2te Aufl., p. 540), Luthardt, 
leave the matter undecided. Even Bloomfield, in the Ad- 
denda to his last work (Crztical Annotations, Additional and 
Supplementary, on the N. T., London, 1860, p. 352), after re- 
tracting the version given in his ninth edition of the Greek 
Testament, candidly says: “I am ready to admit that the 
mode of interpreting maintained by Huther and Al[ford] 
completely satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the 
sentence; that it is both structurally and contextually quite 
as probable as the other, and perhaps more agreeable to the 
Apostle’s way of writing.” 

The view of Lange (Christliche Dogmatik, Heidelb. 1851, 
ii. 161 f.), Van Hengel (/uterp. Ep. Pault ad Romanos, 11. 
358, note), and Schenkel (Dis Christusbild der Apostel, 1879, 
Ρ. 357), that Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is here in apposition to τῆς δόξης, the 
words which precede (τοῦ ey. θεοῦ καὶ owr. ἡμῶν) being referred to 
the Father,* has so little to commend it that it may be 
passed over without discussion. 


* The punctuation in the margin in Westcott and Hort’s V. 7. zz Greek is also intended to 
represent this view. 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II. 13 451 


NOTE, Ax (See \p..440.) 
On the Omission of the Article before σωτῆρος ἡμῶν. 


Middleton’s rule is as follows: ‘When two or more attributives 
joined by a copulative or copulatives are assumed of [assumed to belong 
to] the same person or thing, before the first attributive the article is 
inserted; before the remaining ones it is omitted.” (Doctrine of the 
Greek Article, Chap. III. Sect. IV. § 2, p. 44, Am. edition.) If the 
article is not inserted before the second of the two assumable attribu- 
tives thus connected, he maintains that both must be understood as 
describing the same subject. 

By attributives he understands adjectives, participles, and nouns 
which are “significant of character, relation, or dignity.” 

He admits that the rule is not always applicable to plurals (p. 49); 
and, again. where the attributives “are in their nature plainly incompat- 
ible.” “ We cannot wonder,” he says, “if in such instances the principle 
of the rule has been sacrificed to negligence, or even to studied brevity. 
... The second article should in strictness be expressed; but in such 
cases the writers knew that it might be safely understood” (pp. 51, 52). 

The principle which covers all the cases coming under Middleton’s 
rule, so far as that rule bears on the present question, is, 1 believe, sim- 
ply this: The definite article is inserted before the second attributive 
when it is felt to be needed to distinguish different subjects ; but when 
the two terms connected by a copulative are shown by any circumstance 
to denote distinct subjects, then the article may be omitted, for the ex- 
cellent reason that it is not needed.* 

Middleton’s rule, with its exceptions, applies to the English language 
as well as to the Greek. Webster (Wm.) remarks in his Syuztax and 
Synonyms of the Greek Testament : — 

“In English, the Secretary and Treasurer means one person; the 
Secretary and the Treasurer mean two persons. In speaking of horses, 
the black and white means the piebald, but the black and the white 
mean two different horses.” (pp. 35, 36.) 

But this rule is very often broken when such formal precision of ex- 
pression is not felt to be necessary. If I should say, “1 saw the Presi- 
dent and Treasurer of the Boston and Albany Railroad yesterday,” no 
one, probably, would doubt that I spoke of two different persons, or 
(unless perhaps Mr. G. Washington Moon) would imagine that I was 
violating the laws of the English language. The fact that the two offices 
referred to are generally or always in such corporations held by different 
persons would prevent any doubt as to the meaning. Again, the remark 


*See the remarks (by Andrews Norton) in the Appendix to the American edition of Win- 
stanley’s Vindication 1f Certain Passages in the Common Eng. Version of the N. T.,p. 45 ff. ; 
or Norton’s Statement of Reasons, etc., 2d ed. (1856), op. 199-202. 


452 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


that “ Mr. A. drove out to-day with his black and white horses” would 
be perfectly correct English and perfectly unambiguous if addressed to 
one who &zew that Mr. A. had only four horses, two of them black and 
the other two white. 

Take an example from the New Testament. In Matt. xxi. 12 we 
read that Jesus “cast out all those that were selling and buying in the 
temple,” τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράζοντας. No one can reasonably suppose 
that the same persons are here described as both selling and buying. 
In Mark the two classes are made distinct by the insertion of τούς before 
ἀγοράζοντας; here it is safely left to the intelligence of the reader to 
distinguish them. 

In the case before us, the omission of the article before σωτῆρος seems 
to me to present no difficulty,— not because σωτῆρος is made sufficiently 
definite by the addition of ἡμῶν (Winer), for, since God as well as Christ 
is often called “our Saviour,” 
standing alone, would most naturally be understood of one subject, . 
namely, God, the Father; but the addition of ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ to σωτῆρος 
ἡμῶν Changes the case entirely, restricting the σωτῆρος ἡμῶν to a person or 
being who, according to Paul’s Aaditual use of language, is distinguished 
from the person or being whom he designates as ὁ θεός, so that there was 
no need of the repetition of the article to prevent ambiguity. So in 
2 Thess. i. 12, the expression κατὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν Kai κυρίου would 
naturaily be understood of one subject, and the article would be required 
before κυρίου if two were intended; but the simple addition of ’Ijoov 
Χριστοῦ to κυρίου makes the reference to the two distinct subjects clear 
without the insertion of the article. 

But the omission of the article before the second of two subjects 
connected by καί is not without effect. Its absence naturally leads us to 
conceive of them as united in some common relation, while the repeti- 
tion of the article would present them to the mind as distinct objects 
of thought. The difference between the two cases is like the difference 
between the expressions “the kingdom of Christ and God” and ‘ the 
kingdom of Christ and of God” in English. The former expression 
would denote one kingdom, belonging in some sense to both; the latter 
would permit the supposition that two distinct kingdoms were referred 
to, though it would not require this interpretation. The repetition of 
the preposition, however, as of the article, brings the subjects sepa- 
rately before the mind. In the present case, the omission of the article 
before σωτῆρος, conjoining the word closely with θεοῦ, may indicate that 
the glory spoken of belongs in one aspect to God and in another to 
Christ (comp. Eph. v. 5); or that the glory of God and the glory of 
Christ are displayed in conjunction (comp. 2 Thess. i. 12, κατὰ τὴν χάριν 
τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἴ. X.; Luke ix. 26). 

There may be still another reason for the omission of the: article 
here before σωτῆρος ἡπῶν͵ or, perhaps I should say, another effect of its 


ἡ δόξα τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ Kai σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II. 13 453 


absence. It isa recognized principle that the omission of the article 
before an appellative which designates a person tends to fix the atten- 
tion on the quality or character or peculiar relation expressed by the 
appellative, while the insertion of the article tends to throw into the 
shade the inherent meaning of the term, and to give it the force of a 
simple proper name. For example, in Heb. i. 2 ἐν τῷ υἱῷ would simply 
mean “in (or by) the Son,” or “his Son”; but the omission of the 
article (ἐν vig) emphasizes the significance of the term viéc,— “by one 
who is a Sox,” and in virtue of what that designation expresses is far 
above all “the prophets.” (Comp. T. 5. Green, Gram. of the N. T., 
2d ed., pp. 47 f., 38 f.) So here the meaning may be, “ the appearing of 
the glory of the great God and a Savzour of us,” one who is our Saviour, 
“Jesus Christ ”— essentially equivalent to “of the great God and Jesus 
Christ ἄς our Saviour” (comp. Acts xiii. 23); the idea suggested being 
that the salvation or deliverance of Christians will be consummated at 
the second advent, when Christ “shall appear, to them that wait for 
him, unto salvation.” Comp. Phil. ili. 20, 21, “ For our citizenship is 
in heaven, from whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus 
Christ, ἐξ οὗ καὶ σωτῆρα ἀπεκδε όμεθα κύριον ᾿Τησοῦν Χριστόν, who shall change 
the body of our humiliation,” etc.; Rom. viii. 23, 24, xiii. 11; 1 Thess. 
v. 8,9; Heb. ix. 28; 1 Pet. i. 5. The position of σωτῆρος ἡμῶν before 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, as well as the absence of the article, favors this view; 
comp. Acts xiii. 23; Phil. iii 20, and contrast Tit. i. 4. 

The points which I would make, then, are that the insertion of the 
article before σωτῆρος was not needed here to show that the word desig- 
nates a subject distinct from τοῦ μεγάλου feov; and that its absence serves 
to bring out the thoughts that, in the event referred to, the glory of God 
and that of Christ are displayed ¢ogether, and that Christ then appears 
as Saviour, in the sense that the salvation of Christians, including what 
St. Paul calls “the redemption of the body,” is then made complete. 
These are conceptions which accord with the view which the Apostle 
has elsewhere presented of the second advent. 

But as many English writers still assume that the construction of 
Tit. ii. 13 and similar passages has been settled by Bishop Middleton, 
I will quote in conclusion a few sentences, by way of caution, from one 
of the highest authorities on the grammar of the Greek Testament, 
Alexander Buttmann. He says : — 

“Tt will probably never be possible, either in reference to profane 
literature or to the N. T., to bring down to rigid rules which have 
no exception, the inquiry when with several substantives connected 
by conjunctions the article is repeated, and when it is not. ... From 
this fact alone it follows, that in view of the subjective and arbitrary 
treatment of the article on the part of individual writers (cf. § 124, 2) 
it is very hazardous in particular cases to draw important inferences 
affecting the sense or even of a doctrinal nature, from the single cir- 


454 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


cumstance of the use or omission of the article; see e.g. Tit. ii. 13; 
Jude 4; 2 Pet.i. 1 and the expositors of these passages.” (Gram. of the 
N. T. Greek, § 125, 143 p. 97, Thayer’s trans.) 


NOTE B. (See p. 441 2.*) 
The Use of ἐπιφάνεια and Kindred Terms with Reference to God. 


It has already been observed that the expression used in Tit. ii. 13 
is not ἐπιφάνειαν τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ, but ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ, 
and that the reference of the title ‘the great God” to the Father accords 
perfectly with the representation elsewhere in the New Testament that 
the glory of God, the Father, as well as of Christ, will be displayed at 
the second advent. This reference, therefore, presents no difficulty. 
But the weakness of the argument against it may be still further illus- 
trated by the use of the term ἐπιφάνεια and kindred expressions in Jose- 
phus and other Jewish writings. It will be seen that any extraordinary 
manifestation of divine power, whether exerted directly or through an 
intermediate agent, is spoken of as an ἐπιφάνεια of God. 

1. For example, the parting of the waters of the Red Sea is described 
as “the appearing” or ‘manifestation of God.” Μωὺῦσῆς δὲ ὁρῶν τὴν 
ἐπιφάνειαν τοῦ θεοῦ, x. τ. A. (Joseph. Az. ii. 16. § 2.) 

2. Speaking of the journey through the wilderness, Josephus says: 
“The cloud was present, and, standing over the tabernacle, signified 
the appearing of God,” τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν τοῦ θεοῦ. (Ant. iii. 14. § 4.) 

3. Josephus uses both ἡ παρουσία τοῦ θεοῦ and ἡ ἐπιφάνεια [τοῦ θεοῦ] 
in reference to a miraculous shower of rain (Azz. xviii. 8. (al. 10) § 6). 
So a violent thunder storm, which deterred the army of Xerxes from 
attacking Delphi, is described by Diodorus Siculus as ἡ τῶν θεῶν ἐπιφά- 
vera (Bibl. Hist. xi. 14). Comp. Joseph. “4,2. xv. tt. (al. 14) § 7, where 
ἡ ἐμφάνεια Tov θεοῦ is used in a similar way. Observe also how, in 
Herod’s speech (Az. xv. 5. (al. 6) § 3), angels are spoken of as bringing 
God εἰς ἐμφάνειαν to men. 

4. In reference to the miraculous guidance of Abraham's servant 
when sent to procure Rebecca as a wife for Isaac, the marriage is said 
to have been brought about ὑπὸ θείας ἐπιφανείας, where we might say, 
“by a divine interposition.” (Joseph. Axz. i. 16. § 3.) 

5. After giving an account of the deliverance of Elisha from the 
troops sent by Ben-Hadad to arrest him, which were struck with blind- 
ness, Josephus says that the king “marvelled at the strange event, and 
the appearing (or manifestation) and power of the God of the Israelites 
(τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν ᾿Ισραηλιτῶν ἐπιφάνειαν καὶ δύναμιν), and at the prophet with 
whom the Deity was so evidently present for help.” (Az. ix. 4. § 4.) 
Elijah had prayed that God would “ manifest (:udavica’) his power and 
presence,” παρουσίαν. (Lbid. § 3.) 

6. In Josephus, Azz. v. 8. §§ 2, 3, the appearance of az angel sent by 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II. 13 A455 


God is described as “a sight of God,” ἐκ τῆς ὄψεως τοῦ θεοῦ... τὸν θεὸν 
αὐτοῖς ὁραθῆναι. 

7. In 2 Macc. iii. 24, in reference to the horse with the terrible rider, 
and the angels that scourged Heliodorus, we read, 6 τῶν πατέρων [Δ]. 
πνευμάτων] κίριος καὶ πάσης ἐξουσίας δυνάστης ἐπιφάνειαν μεγάλην ἐποίησεν, 
and in ver. 30, τοῦ παντοκράτορος ἐπιφανέντος κυρίου, “the Almighty 
Lord having appeared,” and farther on, ver. 34, Heliodorus is spoken 
of as having been “scourged ὧν him,” ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, 2.6. the Lord, according 
to the common text, retained by Grimm and Keil. But here for ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ 
Fritzsche reads ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, which looks like a gloss (comp. ii. 21, τὰς ἐξ 
οὐρανοῦ γενομένας ἐπιφανείας). 

8. The sending of a good angel is described as an ἐπιφάνεια τοῦ θεοῦ͵ 
2 Macc. xv. 27, comp. vv. 22, 23. Observe also that in 2 Macc. xv. 34 
and 3 Mace. v. 35 τὸν ἐπιφανῆ κύριον or θεόν does not mean “the glorzous 
Lord (ov God)” as it has often been misunderstood, but ἐπιφανής desig- 
nates God as one who manifests his power in the deliverance of his 
people, a present help in time of need, “the interposing God” (Bissell). 
Compare the note of Valesius (Valois) on Eusebius, W7st. Eccl. ii. 6. § 2. 

g See also 2 Macc. xii. 22 ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πάντα ἐφορῶντος ἐπιφανείας γενομένου 
ἐπ’ αὐτούς; comp. 2 Macc. xi. 8, Io, 13. 

10. “ They made application to him who... always helpeth his por- 
tion [his people] per’ ἐπιφανείας," 2 Macc. xiv. 15. 

11. In 3 Macc.v. 8, we are told that the Jews “ besought the Almighty 
Lord to rescue them from imminent death μετὰ μεγαλομεροῦς éexipaveiac,” 
and again, ver. 51, ‘to take pity on them μετὰ ἐπιφανείας." The answer 
to the prayer is represented as made by the intervention of angels (vi. 18). 
In ch. i. 9, God is spoken of as having glorified Jerusalem ἐν ἐπιφανείᾳ 
μεγαλοπρέπει. 

12. In the Additions to Esther, Text B, vii. 6 (Fritzsche, Lzbr. Afoc. 
V. T. p. 71), the sun and light in Mordecai’s dream are said to represent 
the ἐπιφανία τοῦ θεοῦ, “appearing” (ov manifestation) “of God” in the 
deliverance of the Jews. 

13. In the so-called Second Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Cor- 
inthians, c. 12, § 1, we read: ‘Let us therefore wait hourly [ov betimes, 
Lightf.| for the kingdom of God in love and righteousness, because we 
know not the day of the appearing of God, τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ θεοῦ." The 
τοῦ Geov, employed thus absolutely, must, I think, refer to the Father, 
according to the writer’s use of language. This consideration does not 
seem to me invalidated by c. 1, ὃ t, or by the use of ἐπιφάνεια in reference 
to Christ, c. 17; but others may think differently. 


The use of the term ἐπιφάνεια in the later Greek classical writers 
corresponds with its use as illustrated above. Casaubon has a learned 
note on the word in his Zvercit. ad Annales Eccles. Baronianas, τι. xi., 
Ann. I., Num. 36 (p. 185, London, 1614), in which he says: “ Graeci scrip- 
tores ἐπιφάνειαν appellant apparitionczm numinis guoguo tandem modo 


456 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


deus aliguis suse praesentiae signum dedisse crederetur.” (Comp. his 
note on Athenzeus, xii. 11. al. 60.) Wesseling in his note on Diodorus 
Siculus, i. 25, repeats this, and adds other illustrations from Diodorus, 
namely: iii. 62; iv. 82 [v. 6237; xi.14; and xiv. 69 (a striking example). 
See also the story of the vestal virgin in Dion. Hal. Azz. Rom. ii. 68 
(cf. 69), and of Servius Tullius, ΖόΖα., iv. 2. Other examples are given 
by Elsner, Odss. Sacr.on 2 Pet. i. 16, and by the writers to whom he 
refers. But it is not worth while to pursue this part of the subject 
further here. One who wishes to do so will find much interesting 
matter in the notes of the very learned Ezechiel Spanheim on Calli- 
machus, Hymn. tx Afoll. 13, and zz Pallad. tot, and in his Désserta- 
tiones de Prestantia et Usu Numismatum antiquorum, ed. nova, vol. i, 
(London, 1706), Diss. vii., p. 425 sqq. 


I will only add in conclusion: If Paul could speak of the first advent 
of Christ as an ἐπιφάνεια of the grace of God (see ἐπεφάνη, Tit. 11. 11 ; iii. 4), 
can we, in view of all that has been said, regard it as in the least degree 
strange or unnatural that he should speak of his second advent as an 
ἐπιφάνεια of the glory of God? 


NOTE C. (See p. 444.) 
On the Expression, Tov μεγάλου θεοῦ. 


There is no other passage in the New Testament in which this 
expression occurs, the reading of the “received text” in Rev. xix. 17 
having very slender support. But the epithet “great” is so often applied 
to God in the Old Testament and later Jewish writings, and is so appro- 
priate in connection with the display of the divine power and glory in 
the event referred to, that it is very wonderful that the use of the word 
here should be regarded as an argument for the reference of the θεός to 
Christ on the ground that “God the Father did not eed the exalting 
and laudatory epithet μέγας," as Usteri says (Paulin. Lehrbegriff, ste 
Aufl, p. 326). It might be enough to answer, with Fritzsche, “ At ego 
putaveram, Deum quum sz¢ magnus, jure etiam magnum appellart” 
(Ep. ad Rom. ii. 268). But the following references will show how nat- 
urally Paul might apply this designation to the Father: Deut. viii. 21 
(Sept. and Heb.), x. 17; 2 Chron. ii. § (4); Neh.i. 5, vii. 6, ix. 32; Ps. xxvii. 
13, lxxxvi.10; Jer. xxxli. 18, 19; Danii. 155 ix. 4; Psalt. 6] ΠΡΌ 5, 
3 Macc. vii. 2. Comp. 6 «μέγιστος Oedc, 3 Macc. i. 16, ili. 11, v. 25, vil. 22; 
“the great Lord,’’ Ecclus. xxxix. 6, xlvi. 5; 2 Macc. v.20, xii) Se 
very often in the Sibylline Oracles. I have noted thirty-one examples 
in the Third Book alone, the principal part of which was the production 
of a Jewish writer in the second century before Christ. 

Though all will agree that God, the Father, does not ‘‘ need” exalt- 
ing epithets, such epithets are applied to him freely by the Apostle Paul 


ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II. 13 457 


and other writers of the New Testament. For example, he is called by 
Paul “the incorruptible God,” “the living God,” “the eternal God,” 
“the only wise God,” “the only God,” “ the invisible God,” “the living 
and true God,” “the blessed God”; and, since there is no other place 
in which the Apostle has unequivocally designated Christ as θεός, much 
less θεός with a high epithet, it certainly seems most natural to suppose 
that ὁ μέγας θεός here designates the Father. The Bishop of London 
(in the “Speaker’s Commentary”) appeals to 1 John v. 20, where he 
assumes that Christ is designated as “the true God.” But he must 
be aware that this depends on the reference of the pronoun οὗτος, and 
that many of the best expositors refer this to the leading subject of the 
preceding sentence,— namely, τὸν ἀληθινόν; so, e.g., Erasmus, Grotius, 
Wetstein, Michaelis, Liicke, De Wette, Meyer, Neander, Huther, Diister- 
dieck, Gerlach, Briickner, Ewald, Holtzmann, Braune, Haupt, Rothe, 
C. F. Schmid, Gess, Reuss, Alford, Farrar, Westcott, and Sinclair (in 
Ellicott’s Vv. 7. Comm.); and so the grammarians Alt, Winer, Wilke, 
Buttmann, and Schirlitz; comp. also John xvii. 3. So doubtful a pas- 
sage, and that not in the writings of Paul, but John, can hardly serve 
to render it probable that Paul has here applied the designation ὁ μέγας 
θεός to Christ rather than to God, the Father. 


ΧΙΧ, 


i JOHN V. 7 AND LUTHER’S GERMAN ἘΠΡΊΒΕΣ 


[From the Christian Intelligencer for May 15, 1879.] 


In my reply to Dr. Todd (Christan [Intelligencer for April 
24), I pointed out the futility of his objection to President 
Woolsey’s statement that 1 John v. 7 was “8 passage which 
Luther would not express in his translation,’—a statement 
which, in the face of the plain fact that Luther add not 
insert it in any one of the numerous editions of his transla- 
tion published in his lifetime, Dr. Todd presumed to call a 
“mistake.” I will here simply remind the reader that 
Erasmus introduced the passage into his third edition of the 
Greek Testament in 1522, and that Luther died in) 154@ 
It has been contended, however, by some writers, that, at 
least in the latter part of his life, the great Reformer 
changed his mind, and received the text as genuine. (See 
Knittel’s Meue Krittken, Braunschw. 1785, p. 133 ff.) The 
argument rests on the fact that in an exposition of the First 
Epistle of John, written probably between the years 1543 
and 1545, Luther commented on the verse without express- 
ing any doubt of its genuineness. The question whether 
Luther changed his mind is not important in itself, but is on 
several accounts not without interest. I will therefore state 
the circumstances of the case. 

There are ¢zvo expositions by Luther of the First Epistle 
of John, both of which may be found, translated from the 
original Latin into German, in vol. ix. of Walch’s edition 
of Luther’s Sammtliche Schriften. The first was written 
somewhere between the years 1522 and 1524. (See Walch’s 
ed., 1x. 908-1079, and Vorrede, pp. 18, 19.) In this, 


61. JOHN V. 7 AND LUTHER’S GERMAN BIBLE 459 


Luther, after quoting the passage of the three heavenly wit- 
nesses, remarks :— 

“These words are not found in the Greek Bibles; but it 
seems as if this verse had been inserted by the Orthodox 
against the Arians. This, however, has not been done even 
fittingly, for he [the Apostle] speaks here and there not of 
the witnesses in heaven, but of the witnesses on earth.” 
(Col. 1059.) 

We here see that Luther felt not merely the deficiency of 
the external evidence for the passage, but its internal in- 
congruity. 

The other exposition was certainly written after 1532, and 
probably between 1543 and 1545. (See Knittel, wz supra, 
pp. 134, 135.) It first appeared in 1743, in Walch’s edition 
of Luther, vol. ix. coll. 1to80-1251. In this expasition 
Luther not unfrequently remarks upon Greek words, show- 
ing that he had the Greek text before him. He is said to 
have used as a manual in the later years of his life the edi- 
tion of the Greek Testament published at Basle in 1540 by 
Thomas Platter, which reproduces substantially the text 
of the third edition of Erasmus. (See Luther’s Bzdeliber- 
setzung kritisch bearbeitet von Bindseil und Niemeyer, Theil 
vii., Vorrede, p. xv. note f.) This edition contains 1 John v. 
7, like nearly all of the editions of the sixteenth century 
published after 1522. In his remarks under 1 John v. 6, 
which include the larger part of what he says about the 
seventh verse, Luther begins with observing that “this pas- 
sage is certainly very difficult and obscure.” Speaking of 
the three heavenly witnesses, he rejects the supposition that 
the apostle refers to their testimony at the baptism and the 
transfiguration of Jesus, because that was a testimony borne 
on earth, not “in heaven’”’; and then explains it as given in 
what some later theologians would call “the covenant of 
redemption ”’ made between the three persons of the Trinity. 
Apparently, however, not very well satisfied with this ex- 
planation, he concludes with saying, “If this is not the true 
meaning of these words, I confess that I know no other.” 
(Col. 1225.) On the seventh verse itself, after quoting the 


46ο CRITICAL ESSAYS 


words, he only says: ‘‘ This is the testimony which is borne 
by the three witnesses, [which] is in heaven, and also re- 
mains there. The order here should be observed, namely, 
that the witness which is the last among the witnesses in 
heaven is the first among the witnesses on earth; and with 
reason.” He then proceeds to expound the eighth verse. 

In this second exposition, Luther could no longer say that 
I John v. 7 was not in the Greek Bibles: it had already 
appeared in a large number of editions of the Greek Testa- 
ment. Having it before him, he gave such an explanation 
of it as he could. It does not necessarily follow that he had 
re-examined the subject, and convinced himself of the gen- 
uineness of the passage; but only that he did not choose to 
go into the critical question. If he had really found any 
new evidence in favor of the text, here was the place for 
him to have said so. That he had zot become convinced 
of its genuineness appears from the fact that he did not 
insert it in the edition of his translation published in 1545, 
the year before his death. This is confirmed by the circum- 
stance that he seems never to have quoted the passage as a 
proof-text for the doctrine of the Trinity, though he has 
often treated of this doctrine in his voluminous writings. 

For example, in his Auslegung: der letzten Worte Davids, 
2 Sam. xxiii. 1-7, §§ 65-96 (Walch, ili. 2835-59), he sets 
forth the doctrine at length, quoting as proof-texts Ps. xxxiii. 
6; Matt. xxviii. 19; Luke i. 22); John’ v: 17, Σ: 50.235. πὰ 
other passages, but ignoring 1 John v. 7ζ. This treatise was 
written in 1543. See also, for other discussions of the Trin- 
ity by Luther, his works as edited by Walch, x. 1215-30; 
ΧΙ. 1548-55; ΧΙ]. 852-69; xill. 1508-29, 2624-39. Neither 
here nor anywhere else have I been able to find the pas- 
sage quoted by Luther, though it was zzterpolated into 
his Catechism by Lyser in 1600. (Rickli, Johkannis erster 
brief, Anhang, p. 40.) It is omitted in his Auslegung der 
Epistel τ John v. 4-12] am Sonntage nach Ostern, (Walch, 
ΣΙ. 698, 710.) 

In view of all these facts, the judgment of Michaelis 
seems reasonable. He remarks :— 


I. JOHN V. 7 AND LUTHER’S GERMAN BIBLE 461 


“As to the circumstance that Luther in his later lecture 
explained 1 John v. 7, after he had read it from the Greek 
Testament, without entering into any critical inquiry into 
its authority, it shows nothing more than that Luther dis- 
tinguished exegetical from critical lectures, and that in 
explaining the Greek Testament he interpreted what he and 
his hearers had before them. That he received it as genu- 
ine is an inference which we are not authorized to make.” 
(Iutrod. to the N. T., trans. by Marsh, 2d ed., iv. 440 1.) 

Bengel takes the same view. He says: “It is clear that 
the passage was omitted by Luther not accidentally, but 
deliberately; nay, his colleague Bugenhagen, with solemn 
adjuration, warned all persons against ever inserting it.” 
(Apparatus criticus ad N. T., ed. 2da, 1763, p. 459.) Luther's 
own warning, prefixed to editions of his translation of the 
New Testament from 1530 onward, ought to have been suffi- 
cient. His words are as follows :— 

“Martin LuTHerR. I beg all my friends and enemies, 
my masters, printers and readers, to let this Testament be 
mine. If they find it faulty, let them make one of their own 
for themselves. I know well what I make; I see well what 
others make. But this Testament shall be Luther’s German 
Testament. For of playing the master and the critic [or “of 
conceited correcting and criticising,” mezsterns und kliigelns| 
there is nowadays neither measure nor end. And let every 
man be warned against other copies. For I have had full 
experience how carelessly and falsely others reprint what I 
have printed.” (See Luther’s Brbelibersetzung von Bindseil 
und Niemeyer, Theil vi. p. 15. Compare also the Warnung 
prefixed to Luther’s Bible of 1541. Jdzd., Theil vii. p. 21 f.) 

The warning of Luther and the protest of Bugenhagen 
(occasioned by the interpolation of t John v. 7 in an Evan- 
gelten- und Eptstelbuch printed at Wittenberg in 1549) were 
not without effect, for at least one generation. The first 
edition of Luther’s German Bible which contains 1 John 
v. 7 appears to have been one printed at Frankfurt-am-Main 
in 1582, 4to. Panzer and Monckeberg are wrong in saying 
that the verse was inserted in a Hamburg edition in 1574. 


462 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


(See Huther, Krit. exeg. Handb. iiber die drei Briefe des 
Ap. Johannes, 3te Aufl., 1868, p. 222, note.) It is found in 
none of the numerous editions printed at Wittenberg before 
1596. In the Swiss-German version (not published under 
Luther's name) printed by Froschover at Ziirich in 1529, it 
was inserted in smallertype, and so in the edition of 1531; 
in nearly all the later editions from 1534 to 1589 (that of 
1561 is said by Ebrard to be an exception), in brackets ; in 
1597 without brackets, at which time it was also introduced 
as a proof-text into the Ziirich Catechism. The Basle edi- 
tion by Byrlinger in 1552 is said to have it without brackets. 
It was still omitted in Meissner’s Wittenberg edition of 
1607, and in a quarto edition printed at Wittenberg in 1620; 
also, in Hamburg editions of 1596, 1619, and 1620. Since 
this last date the interpolation has appeared in the number- 
less editions of Luther's German Bible without mark of 
doubt, except that it has been bracketed in the recent 
authorised ‘revised edition” of his version of the New Tes- 
tament (Halle, Canstein’sche Bibelanstalt, 1871), with the 
following note: “The bracketed words are wanting in 
Luther’s translation, and were not added till later.” It 
should be understood that the words auf Erden, “on earth,” 
in verse 8, are not included in the brackets. They were 
inserted by Luther in the five editions of his German Bible 
printed at Wittenberg from 1541 to 1545 inclusive; but this 
very fact shows that his attention was directed to the pas- 
sage, and that the omission of the three heavenly witnesses 
was intentional. ; 
(Perhaps I may be pardoned for turning aside a moment 
to correct two errors which have been repeated from Rickli 
(1828) by a large number of respectable scholars, as De 
Wette, Tischendorf in his editions of 1841, 1849, 1859, and 
1869-72, Bertheau in his edition of Liicke on the Epistles 
of John (1856), Davidson, Braune in Lange’s Commentary, 
etc. They all speak of Robert Stephens as receiving the 
passage in his editions of 1546-69, and Beza in his editions 
of 1565-76. They should have said ‘‘ Robert Stephens ¢he 
elder in his editions of 1546-51, and Robert Stephens she 


I. JOHN V. 7 AND LUTHER’S GERMAN BIBLE 463 


younger in his edition of 1569” (the great Robert died ten 
years before) ; also, “‘Beza in his editions 1565-98.” Beza 
published no edition in 1576: the one of that date erro- 
neously ascribed to him by several writers was edited by 
Henry Stephens.) 

We may observe, finally, that the other early Reformers 
and friends of Luther generally rejected the passage; so 
Zwingli, Bullinger, G2colampadius, Bugenhagen (Rickli, #07 
Supra, pp. 35, 36). So, also, according to Kettner (7zstorza 
gett. fohannee:...0 Johne'vic7. ete, 1713, cap, ΠῚ Mélanch- 
thon, Cruciger (or Creutziger), Justus Jonas, Forster, Auro- 
gallus. (See Semler, Hest. μι. krit. Sammlungen tiber τ John 
v. 7, I. 248.) Bugenhagen, as we have seen, was especially 
strenuous against it; see his Axrposztio Jone, 1550, cited 
by Rickli, p. 39. It was also omitted in the celebrated 
Latin version of the Bible by Leo Jude, Pellicanus, Peter 
Cholin, Rudolph Gualther, and others, printed at Ziirich in 
1543, fol, and commonly called the Ziirich Bible or Verszo 
Tigurina. A marginal note explains the reasons for its 
rejection. The passage was received, though with hesita- 
tion, by Calvin, and without hesitation by Beza. Both of 
them, however, explain “these three are one”’ as relating 
not to unity of essence, but agreement in testimony. 

To trace the history of this gross corruption of the text 
in modern Translations, Catechisms, and Confessions of 
Faith, especially in the Greek Church since the sixteenth 
century, and in modern editions of some ancient versions, as 
the Peshito Syriac, Armenian, and Slavonic, might be inter- 
esting and instructive, psychologically as well as critically ; 
but there is no room for it here. 


XX. 


ON THE DIVISION OF THE GREEK NEW 
TESTAMENT’ INTO VERSES. 


[From the First Part of the Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s Editio Octava critica maior.) 


THE history of the division of the Bible into our present 
verses is somewhat obscure, and many erroneous statements 
are current respecting it. For example, Tischendorf (in 
Herzog’s Real-Encyk. ii. 174, p. 422, 2d ed.) and Reuss (Gesch. 
εἶ, heiligen Schriften N. T., 5te Ausg., 1874, ὃ 337), after Jahn, 
Bertholdt, and others, represent it as first introduced by 
Robert Stephens (Estienne) in his edition of the Vulgate in 
1546; De Wette (Zzx/. τῇ d. A. 7: p. 112, 7te Ause., ΣΝ 
and Keil (Zz, 2te Aufl, 1859, p. 518) say 1558. But no 
edition of the Vulgate was printed by Robert Stephens in 
either of those years. Others erroneously assign 1545, 
others still 1557, as the date of the Latin Bible first divided 
into verses. The best account of the matter that I know 
of is given by Dr. William Wright, art. “Verse” in Kitto’s 
Cyclopedia of Bibl. Literature (London, 1845); in the third 
edition (1870) this article is somewhat carelessly abridged. 
On some points I have supplemented his statements. 

The main facts are as follows. The numbering of the 
Masoretic verses in the Old Testament is supposed to have 
been first made by Rabbi Isaac Nathan, for convenience of 
reference in his Hebrew Concordance, completed A.D. 1448, 
and first printed at Venice in 1524.* The Quinucuplex Psal- 
ter‘um, printed by Henry Stephens the elder at Paris in 
1509, and edited by Jacobus Faber Stapulensis (Jacques Le 
Feévre d’Estaples), is the first edition of any part of the Old 


*The dates 1445 and 1523 are sometimes inaccurately given. These errors are corrected 
by Bindseil, Concord. Homer. Specimen, Halis, 1867, 8vo, Pro!egom. p. xvi., and p. xviii., note, 


VERSE-DIVISIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 465 


Testament in which the Masoretic verses are numbered by 
Arabic figures. The first edition of the whole Bible divided 
into verses is the Latin translation by Sanctes Pagninus, 
printed at Lyons in 1528. But in the Apocrypha and the 
New Testament his division was very different from ours, 
the verses being twice or three times as long; and it seems 
to have been followed in no other edition. 

The first edition of the New Testament divided into our 
present verses was printed by Robert Stephens at Geneva 
in I5s1, in 2 vols. 16mo, the Greek text occupying the 
centre of the page, with the Latin version of Erasmus on 
one side and the Vulgate on the other. His son Henry 
tells us that a large part of this verse-division was made 
“inter equitandum,” while the author was on a journey from 
Paris to Lyons. It was preliminary to his construction of 
a Greek Concordance of the New Testament, which was 
completed by Henry Stephens and published in 1594. (See 
Henry Stephens’s preface to this Concordance.) Another 
reason given by Robert Stephens for the division into sepa- 
rated verses was, ‘quod hac ratione vtraque translatio posset 
omnino e regione Greco contextui respondere” (Pref. to 
N. T., 1551). The first edition of the whole Bible diviled 
into our present verses was Robert Stephens’s edition of 
the Vulgate, Geneva, 1555 (‘“‘viul. Idvs Aprilis’’), 8vo, the 
division being made for his Latin Concordance, issued the 
same year. This division also appears in the splendid edi- 
tion of the Vulgate, accompanied in the Old Testament by 
the version of Pagninus with the notes ascribed to Vatable, 
and in the New Testament by that of Beza with his annota- 
tions, which was printed in three folio volumes by Robert 
Stephens at Geneva in 1557. This is the eighth and last 
edition of the Latin Bible printed by Robert Stephens.* 
The first -rexch New Testament divided into verses was 
that printed by Robert Stephens in 1552, in 2 vols. small 
8vo, containing the French version of Olivetan revised by 


*See LeLong, Bi6/. Sacra, ed. Masch, iii. τοῦ ff.; and for a very full description, Knock, 
Hist.-crit. Nachrichten von der Braunswzigischen Bibelsammlung, Guelferb. 1754, i. pp. 
876-891. 


466 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Calvin, and the Latin version of Erasmus, in parallel col- 
umns; the first French Bible so divided appears to be the 
edition of the Genevan version printed by Robert Stephens 
at Geneva, 1553, in folio.* The first /ta/zax version, so far 
as I know, which contains the verse-divisions of Stephens 
was that which was made by the martyr John Louis Paschale, 
and issued without place, but perhaps at Geneva, in the year 
1555.¢ The first Dzéch translation which has these verses 
was published at Emden in 1556, 8vo, by Gell. Ctematius; 
the Dutch Bible issued at Emden in 1560, 4to, is so divided. 
The first Exglish New Testament divided into verses was 
the version of William Whittingham, printed at Geneva in 
1557; the first English Bible so divided was the Genevan 
version, completed in 1560, in which the translation of the 
New Testament differs widely from that of 1557. Beza fol- 
lowed Stephens’s division into verses, with some variations, 
in the first edition of his La¢zu translation of the Greek Tes- 
tament, published at Geneva in 1557 (this is the date at the 
end of the volume; the title-page is dated 1556), already re- 
ferred to as the second volume of Robert Stephens’s Latin 
Bible of that year. In his first edition of the Greek New 
Testament accompanied with his Latin version and notes, 
Geneva, 1565, fol., and in his numerous subsequent editions, 
Beza deviated much more frequently from the verse-divisions 
of Robert Stephens; and his editions had great influence 
in giving currency to the use of the division into verses, 
which soon became general. His variations from the divi- 
sion of Stephens were largely followed by later editors, espe- 
cially the Elzevirs, who also introduced others of their own. 
Others still will be found in the early modern translations. 
The variations of later editions of the Greek Testament 
from that of Robert Stephens in respect to the division into 


*See the account of these editions in Baumgarten’s Nachrichten von merkw. Biichern, 
Halle, 1752, il. 377 f£., 379 ff. 


+“ Est mihi N. T. Gallico-Italicum, editum a. 1555 ap. Giovan Luigi Paschale, quod est dis- 
tinctum hodierna distinctione versuum.’’ Leusden, δά οί. Hebr.-Gr., Utrecht, 1670, Diss. iii., 
§ 12, p.21. Paschale was burned at Rome in 1¢60 for protestantism. 


tSee Isaac LeLong, Boek-Zaal der Nederduyt. Bybels, Amst. 1732, p. 716; cf. p. 708 seq., 
711 seq., 667 seq. 


VERSE-DIVISIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 467 


verses, are not noted, so far as I am aware, by any of the 
critical editors. One reason for this may be the extreme 
rarity of Stephens’s edition of 1551, which has the best right 
to be regarded as the standard, from which an editor should 
not deviate in marking the beginning of a verse without 
noting the change, and then only for very strong reasons. 

The want of agreement in different editions, leading of 
course to discrepancies in concordances, dictionaries, and 
other books of reference, often occasions doubt and _ per- 
plexity. Who shall say which edition is right? It has ap- 
peared to me, therefore, that it would be useful to exhibit 
the results of a collation of Stephens’s edition of 1551 with 
the Elzevir edition of 1633 (the first of the Elzevirs divided 
into separated verses), and with Tischendorf’s eighth critical 
edition (1869-72). With the variations noted I have com- 
pared about fifty of the principal editions of the Greek New 
Testament, and some early translations. 


LIST OF EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS EXAMINED, 


IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, WITH THE ABBREVIATIONS USED. 


Alphabetical Key to the List. 


Ἂ ΞΞ ἃ: D075 Lic 21. T = 235 
Al = 25 Elz = 7. Lu = 35. Thi 22) 
5) ΞΞ 2 5 ΞΞ ὁ ΝΠ -ΞΞ- ΤΌΣ πη ΞΞ ΤΌ 
Band B= 3 ΞΞΙΤΟΣ 85 ΞΞ 11. ἜΤ ΞΞ 2: 
Be — 12," (Gevand\Gen— 52,,532. Mt = 14: V =36: 
Big στ, ἘΠ᾿ Ξ- τσ; Θ.ΟΙ͂ν ΞΞΞ τὸ: Wa! 
81. 7 ΗΒ ΞΞ τ᾿ ΘΟΙ -Ξ-  ΖΌ. Wd = 26. 
Bp = 34. eto Se Wiel Ὁ: 
Br = 39 ray Sz = 20. WH = 30: 
Οἵ: ΞΞ- 3: 


ῳ 


St: Rob. Stephanus (Estienne), N. T. Gr. et Lat. 1551; Biblia, 1555, 8vo. 
Where they differ, St®!, St®. 

B:; Theo. Beza (de Beze), N. T. Lat. 1557 (title-page 1556), fol. 

B®: T. Beza, N. T. Gr. et Lat., fol., 1565, 1582, 1588 (in many copies 1589), 
1598; 8vo, 1565, 1567, 1580, 1590. 

(B) Where these editions differ, I have noted it; where αὐ the editions 
of Beza agree, including the Latin of 1557, “B” alone is used. 

A: The Greek N. T. in the Antwerp Polyglott, Tom. v. (1571), also Tom. 
vi. (1572), fol. 

HS: H. Stephanus (Estie-ne), N. T. Gr. 1576. 

We: Divine Script. omnia Gr. Francofurti, ap. Andr. Wecheli heredes, 
1597, fol. 

Elz: Elzevir (Elzevier) eds. of 1624, 1633, 1641, 1656, 1662, 1670, 1678. 
Where they differ, the date is given. 

Cur: S. Curcellazus (Etienne de Courcelles), N. T. Gr. 1658. (Other eds., 
1675, 1685, 1699.) 

F: J. Fell, Oxon. 1675. 

M: J. Mill, Oxon. 1707, fol.; also ed. L. Kuster, Amst. and Leipzig (also 
Rotterdam), 1710, fol. 

Mas: G. von Mastricht (“G. D. T. M. D.”), ed. alt., 1735. (1st ed., 1711.) 

Be: J. A. Bengel, 1734, 4to. 

W: J. J. Wetstein, 1751-52, fol. 

Mt: C. F. Matthaei, N. T. Gr. et Lat. 1782-88; N. T. Gr. 1803-07. 
Where they differ, Mt!, Με. 

Bi: A. Birch, Quatuor Evanzelia, 1788, 4to. 

G: J. J. Griesbach, ed. 2da, 1796-1806 (ed. maior); Lips. 1805 [1806] (ed. 
minor); Vol. I., ed. tert. cur. D. Schulz, 1827. Where they differ, 
Gmai, Guin, G27, 


27. 


28. 


29. 


30. 


51: 
32. 


33: 
34- 


35: 


36. 
37" 


VERSE-DIVISIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 469 


K: G.C. Knapp, ed. 2da, 1813; 4ta (ed. Thilo et Roedigez), :829. (Other 
eds., 1797, 1824, 1840.) 

Sch: H. A. Schott, Gr. et Lat. ed. 3tia, 1825; 4th ed. by Baumgarten- 
Crusius, 1839 (9.39). (Earlier eds., 1805, 1811.) 

Tn: J. A. H. Tittmann, ed. ster. 1828, 16mo. (Other eds., 1820, 16mo; 
1824, 1831, Svo.) 

Sz: J. M. A. Scholz, 1830-36, 4to. 

L: C. Lachmann, ed. ster. 1831 (ed. minor; also dated 1837, 1846); ed. 
maior, Gr. et Lat. 1842-50. 

H: A. Hahn, 1840, 12n0; 1841, in separated verses, 16mo. (Reprinted 
New York, 1842, ster. ed.) Post Lachm. et Tisch. denuo diligenter 
recognovit, 1861. Where the eds. differ, H#!, ΗΠ, 

Th: C. G. W. Theile, 1844; ed. ster. undecima, cur. Gebhardt, 1875. 
Where they differ, Th#, Th®. 

Bl: 5. T. Bloomfield, Greek Test. with English notes, 9th ed., 1855. (1st 
ed., 1832.) 

Al: H. Alford, Vols. I., II., 6th ed., 1868-71; Vol. III., 5th ed., Vol. IV., 
4th ed., 1871. (ist ed., 1849-61.) 

Wd: C. Wordsworth, Greek Testament with English notes; Gospels, 5th 
ed., 1866; Acts, 4th ed., 1864; Paul, Epp., 4th ed., 1866; Gen. Epp. 
and Reyv., 3d ed., 1864. (ist ed., 1856-60.) 

Tr: S. P. Tregelles, Gr. and Lat., Parts I-VI., 1857-72, 4to. (Part VII. 
Prolegomena and Addenda, 1879.) 

T: (L. F.) C. von Tischendorf, 1869-72; also the earlier critical eds., 
1841, 1849, 1859; and the manual eds. published in 1873 by Tauchnitz, 
Brockhaus, and Mendelssohn (ed. acad.). Where they differ, ΤΙ, etc. 

Scr: F. H. (A.) Scrivener, N. T. textiis Stephanici A.D. 1550. Ed. auct. 
et emend. Cantab. 1877. 

WH: B.F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort. The N. T. in the original Greek. 
The text revised, etc. Cantab. and Lond. 1881. These editors now 
agree uniformly with Stephens in the verse-divisions. The deviations 
in a few of the earlier copies have since been corrected. 


TRANSLATIONS. 


St and Bo": See Nos. 1 and 2 above. 

Ge: English N. T. (by W. Whittingham), Geneva, 1557. (Bagster’s fac- 
simile reprint, Lond. 1842.) 

Gen: Genevan English version of the Bible, 1560. “Ge” stands for both 
“Ge” and “Gen ” when they agree, as they generally do. 

Bp: The Bishops’ Bible, so called, 1568. (I have used the second edition, 
Lond. 1572, fol.) 

Lu: The German version of Luther. Goezius was unable to find any 
older edition divided into verses than the one published by Feyer- 
abend, Franc. on the Main, 1582, 8vo. I have followed the divisions 
in the edition of Bindseil and Niemeyer, 1854-55. 

V: Biblia sacra Vulgatae editionis, etc., Romae, 1592, fol. 

D: La Bibbia; cioé, i libri del Vecchio e del Nvovo Test. traslatati da 
Gio. Diodati, 1607, fol. 


470 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


38. J: King James’s English Bible (“authorized version”), 1611, fol. (I have 
used the “ Exact Reprint,” Oxford, 1833, 4to.) 

*39. Br: Il Nvovo Testamento di Jesv Christo nostro Signore, Latino & 
volgare, diligentemente tradotto dal testo Greco, & conferito con molte 
altre traduttioni volgari & Latine, le traduttioni corrispddenti 1’ vna a 
1’ altra, & partite per versetti. In Lyone, appresso Guillel. Rouillio. 
MDLVIII. 16mo. pp. 559, besides 1 blank leaf, and “ Tavola 
che insegna a trovar |’ Epistole ἃ gli Evangeli delle Domeniche, e 
feste dell’ Anno, secondo 14 con-uetudine della chiesa Romana,” pp. 7, 
and 1 blank leaf. Fol. 325 gi es a special title embracing the Epp. 
of Paul, the Cath. Epp., and the Apoc. 


I have examined fifty-one editions of the Greek Testament and nine 
translations. 

( ) denotes that the beginning of the verse in the edition in question is 
uncertain, the verses being distinguished only by the number in the 
margin. This uncertainty is frequent in the editions of Schott, Scriv- 
ener, and Westcott and Hort; and usually in such cases I have made 
no reference to them. 

n. signifies that an ambiguity in the text is sometimes removed by the note. 


VARIATIONS IN RESPECT TO THE VERSE-DIVISION. 


N.B.— I give first (from St. 1551) the words placed in different verses in different editions, 
occasionally noting various readings. 


Matt. ii. 1, 2 . Aéyovrec, 
ver. 2,0 Bb A HS We Elz M Bi © All Τὺ 1 (exe: τ Scr 5iGe 
Br Bp ve D J. 
ver. I, Elz, 41, 56, 62, 70,78 Cur F Mas Be W Mt ἃ (G™) K Sch Tn 
Sz T#! H Th Bl Wd; Lu. 
—v. 4,5 Μακάριοι οἱ πενθοῦντες... ® Mak, οἱ πρᾳεῖς, κ. τ. A. 
These verses are transposed by Ltext (contra L™7e) Tr T (exc. ΤῊ) 
St and V. WH™=rs mark the transposition 4 F “as having a 
claim to be at least provisionally associated with the true text.” 
L retains the former zamdering of the verses. 
—ix. 23, 24 Aéyer αὐτοῖς [{. ν. ἔλεγεν], 
ver. 24, St ΒΑ HS We Elz Cur F Mas Be W Mt Gmin K Tn T# 
Ἡ ΤῸ Al Τὺ; Ge Bre ΒΡ ΕἸ: 
ver. 22, M Bi Gmal Sch L Bl Wd T (exc. T#); V. 
—xv. 5,6 Kai ov μὴ τιμήσῃ τὸν πατέρα αὑτοῦ ἢ τὴν μητέρα αὑτοῦ" (Various read- 
ings.) 
ΜΟΙ, ὁ, δὲ Α We All ΤΙ; σε ΒΕ ΡΝ [τ]: 
ver. 5 B HS Elz Cur F M Mas Be W Mt Bi G Καὶ Sch Tn Sz L 
ΕἸ ΤΠ Bl Wd 2 Ser; Ὁ. 
—xxi.1,2 <Aéywv αὐτοῖς, 
ver. 1, Elz, 41, 
ver. 2, All the rest. (Br) 


*[This edition was collated by Dr. Abbot subsequently (March, 1881); hence its unchrono- 
logical position and numbering. The copy uscd belongs to Dr. Isaac H. Hall.] 


VERSE-DIVISIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 471 


Matt. xxi. 25, 26. Ἐὰν εἵπωμε., ἐξ οὐρανοῦ " ἐρεῖ ἡμῖν͵ διατί οὖν οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε αὐτῷ ; 
Wer. 20, 03 Vi. 
ver. 25, Ad/ the rest. (Br) 
— xxiii. 13,14 Οὐαὶ dé ὑμῖν... ὅτι KAeiere... 14 Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν... ὅτι κατεσθίετε.... 
So St B HS Elz Cur F Mas Be ΝΥ ἐσὺ Th (but brackets ver. 14); Ge 
Br ΒΡ Dae 
vv. 13, 14, are transposed by A We M W™"s Mt Bi G (but G” ver. 
14) ἘΠ Schein ΞΖ ΗΓ Bl Widescr. Of these, Gk Sz Ἢ retain 
the former numbering. 
ver. 14 is omitted by G® L Al Tr T WH. Of these, L Al Tr WH 
(but not T) number ver. 13 as 14. 
—xxvili. 8,9 ὥς δὲ ἐπορεύοντο ἀπαγγεῖλαι τοὶς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ, 
ver. 8, ΒΟ A Tr n.; Br Lu. 
ver. 9, B® HS We Elz Cur F M Mas Be W Mt Bi ἃ K Sch Tn Sz 
H Th Bl Al n. Wd T n. Scr; Ge Bp J. The clause is omitted 
by St® G® L Al Tr T WH; V D; bracketed by BI. 
Mark ili. 19, 20 Καὶ ἔρχονται [{. ν. ἔρχεται] εἰς οἶκον" 
ver. 20, St A Ejz5s, 02: 70 185. Cur F Mas Mt Bi G K Sch Tn Sz H 
Th Bl Wd Tr Tuer WH; Br Lu V D: 
ver. 19, B HS We Elz™, 33,41 M W Be L ΑἹ T (exc. Ttauch’3) ; 
CerBpr: 
—vi. 27,28 Ο dé [/. v. Kai] ἀπελθὼν ἀπεκεφάλισεν αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ φυλακῇ. 
ver. 27, st ΒΒ Δ Tr WH; Ge Br Bp V Lu J. 
ver. 28, B® HS We Elz Cur ΕΜ Mis Be W Mt Bi G Καὶ Sch Tn 
si Wy lat “bla iil AML να ak Sigeo 9: 
— xiii. 8,9 ἀρχαὶ ὠδίνων ταῦτα. 
ver. 8, St BS’ A Tr WH; Ge Br Bp Lu V J. 
ver. ὦ, BS HS We Hiz Cur F M Mas Be W Mt Bi G K Sch Tn 
ΘΒ IU, lal ΒΊΑ NYG 4b > 1D). 
Luke iv. 18, 19 κηρύξαι [κηρῦξαι] αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν, καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν͵ 
ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει, 
18, St! B HS Elz Cur F Mas Be W Mt? G Καὶ BI Wd Tr Ser 
WH; Ge Bp Lu J. 
ver 10, St> A We M Mt Bi Sch Dinsz Lo Th Al T; Br Ὁ. 
—vi. 17,18 Οἱ ἦλθον ἀκοῦσαι αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἰαθῆναι ἀπὸ TOV νόσων αὑτῶν" 
WEI ΤΡ tore day ΤΗΣ εν. 
ver. 17, B HS We Elz Cur F M Mas Be W Mt Bi G K Sch Tn 
ΕΖ Ὁ Ἢ ΤῊ Β] ΑἸ Wd sere) ΟΕ ΒΡ 1 
— vii. 18,19 Καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος dbo τινὰς τῶν μαθητῶν αὑτοῦ ὁ ᾿Τωάννης, 
ver. 18, St! B HS Elz Cur Be Tr WH; Lu. ; 
ver. 19, St A We F M Mas W Mt Bi ἃ K Sch Tn Sz L H Th 
IPAS Wide Scr) Ge Br Bp 91: 
— x. 21,22 Kai στραφεὶς πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς, εἶπε, 
ver. 21, 5561 We Cur F Mas W Bi Mt? Καὶ n. BI Wd Tr n. 
ver. 22, M Mt! Gm™ n. Sch n. Sz L H Th [Al] T Scr; Gen J™™s. 
Omitted by St B A HS Elz Be G Sch Tn Tr WH; Ge Br Bp 
Lovey: 
— xiv. 3,4 Ol δὲ ἡσύχασαν. 
ver. 4, St ΒΑ HS We Elz, 41 Be K Tn H Th Al Tr; Ge 
Br Bp Lu V-D J. 


ve 


- 
. 


472 CRITICAL ESSAYS 
ver. 3, Elz5s, 6& 7, 78 Cur F M Mas Mt Bi Gmai Sch Sz Bl Wd T. 

Luke xiv. 34, 35 Καλὸν τὸ ἅλας... ®Obre εἰς γῆν... 

Elz (all editions) unite Hise two verses, thus dividing the chapter into 
thirty-four verses only. 

— xix. 41, 42 λέγων, 
ver. 42, St! B A HS We Elz Cur F Mas Be W Mt? Καὶ Tn H Th 

BI Al Wd Tr; Ge Bp Lu D J. 
ver. 41, St° M Mt! Bi Gmi Sch L Sz T; Br V. 

— xxii. 66,67 <Aéyovrec, Ei σὺ ὁ Χριστός; εἰπὲ [0. v. εἰπὸν] ἡμῖν. 

ver. 67, St B A HS We Elz Cur F Mas Be W Gm G2? Mt? K Tn 
Sz H® Th BL Wd Tr Ser WH; so Br Ge Lu D; bat ΒΡ 
“saying, “Art thou; ἡ etc, 

ver. 66, M Mt! Bi Gmi_Sch L H® Al T; V. 

— xxiv. 45, 46 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, 
ver. 45, ote) Greek Tn WEL. 
ver. 46, Adl the rest, and 5151 in the Lat., Br (WH). 

John i. 38, 39 Τί ζητεῖτε; Οἱ δὲ εἶπον αὐτῷ, PaB3i, (ὃ λέγεται ἑρμηνευόμενον, 

διδάσκαλε) ποῦ μένεις; 

ver. 38, st BA We Tr WH; Ge Br Bp LuyV BD) J. 

ver. 39, B® Elz and all the rest, making Ti ζητεῖτε... μένεις a verse 
by itself, so that vv. 39-51 St = vv. 4o-52 Ez, etc. 

— iv. 35,36 707. T WH connect ἤδη with ver. 36, reading ἤδη ὁ θερίζων 

kK. Τ᾿ ἃ. So Trmare, 

— ix. 11,12 Απελθὼν δὲ [Z. v. οὖν] Kai νιψάμενος ἀνέβλεψα. 
ver. 12, Elz Be. 
ver. 11, Add the rest. Br. 

Acts ii. 10, 11 Ιουδαϊοί τε καὶ προσήλυτοι, 

Were ΤῊ, Ste ἃ ΝΘ 1» ΒΥ ΤΠ IO) 
ver. 10, All the rest. (Tn) (WH) 

— — 47, 11. Ἐπιτοαυτὸ δὲ Πέτρος x. τ. 2. 

L Al Tr T#, 7 (ot T#9, 5) WH (and so St® V) join ἐπιτοαυτὸ to 
ii. 47, Omitting τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, and reading in iii. 1 Πέτρος dé καὶ 
᾿Ιωάννης κ. τ. A. 1, ΤῊ WH however retain the old numbering. 

— 11. 19,20 Owe ἂν ἔλθωσι καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως ἀπὸ προσώπου Tov Kuoiov, 
ver. 20, St A We Gmin K Sch Th Tr WH; Br Lu V. 
ver. 19, All the rest. 

—v.8,9 H δὲ εἶπε, Nai, τοσούτου. 
ver. 9, Elz (#4), 88, 41, 
ver. 8, All the rest. Br (WH) 

— — 39,40 Ἐπείσθησων δὲ αὐτῷ" 
ver. 39, St A Gmai Sch Sz Tr WH; Br V. 
ver. 40, All the rest. (WH) 

— xi. 25,26 Καὶ εὑρὼν αὐτὸν ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν εἰς ᾿Αντιόχειαν. 
ver. 26, St B57 A We Tr Scr WH; Ge Br Bp Lu J. 
ver. 25, B® HS Elz Cur F M Mas Be W Mt G K Sch Tn Sz L H 

ΠΕ Αι aes Vi Ὁ: 


ποῦ ; ONES: ΤΣ : } PEP icy i | ig a 
— Rill. 32, 33 OTe ταύτην ὁ Θεὸς ἐκπεπλήρωκε τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῶν ἡμίν, ἀναστησα: 


. 


᾿Τησοῦν, 
ver. 33, St ΒΗ A We Gmn Kk Sch Tn H# Th Tr WH; Ge Br Bp 
ue Vela: 


VERSE-DIVISIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 473 


6. 55: ΒΡ ES) ΕἸ Θὰ BM Mas) Be Wi Mt Gm Sz Το He! Bl Al 
Wed I Scr: 
Acts xiii. 38, 39 καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων ὧν οὐκ ἠδυνήθητε ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Μωσέως δικαιωθῆναι, 
ver. 36, St Β5 A We αὐ K Tr WH; Ge Br Lu V. 
ver. 39, B® HS Elz Cur F M Mas Be W Mt Gmi Sch Tn Sz LH 
Th Bl Al Wider Ser, Gen bp 19: 
—xviili. 12, 13 Aéyovtec, 
ver. 12, E z33, 41, 
ver. 13, A// the rest. Br. 
— xix. 40, 41 καὶ yap κινδυνεύομεν... ταύτης. καὶ ταῦτα εἰπὼν ἀπέλυσεν τὴν 
᾽εκκλησίαν. 
ver. 40 καὶ γὰρ... ᾿εκκλησίαν. St Be, 66, 82. 88. 98 Bmin 65 Al572 HS We 
Elz Cur F Mas W Mt Gm! K Sch Tn Sz H Th T; Lu V. 
ver. 41 begins with the words καὶ ταῦτα in Ab M Be Mt! Gm 1, Bl 
ἈΠ Ν ire scr ΜΗ; Ge Bp |i: 
—xxiv. 2,3 Πολλῆς εἰρήνης τυγχάνοντες διὰ cov καὶ κατορθωμάτων [{. v. διορθωμά- 
των] γινομένων τῷ ἔθνει τούτῳ διὰ τῆς σῆς προνοίας, 
ver. 2, St B57 Tr WH; Ge Br Bp V J. 
ver. 3, All the rest. 
—— 18,19 Τινὲς δὲ [Elz om δὲ] ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ασίας ’Iovdaior, 
ver. 19, St B®’ A We Gmin Sch; Br Bp Lu V D (WH). 
ver. 18, 4.1 the rest. (WH) In 5061, δὅ (not so Br) and B®” ver. 19 
is numbered 19, 20 or “19 et 20”; hence vv. 21-28 St = 20-27 
Elz, etc. This double numbering of ver. 19 appears to have 
arisen from an interpolation here in many copies of the Latin 
Vu'gate. In St® the following (marked as wanting in the Greek) 
is inserted at the beginning of ver. 19: “Et apprehenderunt me, 
clamantes, ἃ dicentes, Tolle inimicum nostri” The same inter- 
polation is found in the Sixtine edition of the Vulgate (1590), but 
not in the Clementine (1592). 
In Ge Gen ver. 18 is divided into two, ver. 19 beginning “ Neither with 
m ‘Ititude,” so that vv. 20-28 Ge etc. = 19-27 J. 
Rom. i. 29, 30 ψιθυριστὰς, 
ΧΕΙ: 20, oc Β΄ An Al τ: Ger Br) ΒΡ Τὰν]: 
ver. 30, A// the rest. (WH) 
--ν 0,21 ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι" 
ver. 20, St BY’ A We M Mt G Sch Sz ἫΝ ΤΠ Al Tr T WH; 
Ge Br Bp Lu V J. But G Sch Sz H Th® ΑἹ Tr place a comma 
after ἐλπίδι, and L Th*# T WH have no point. 
ver. 21, B55 HS Elz Cur F Mas Be W K Tn BI Wd Ser; D. 
— ix. 11,12 οὖκ ἐξ ἔργων, ἀλλ᾽ Ex τοῦ καλοῦντος, 
ΜΕΤ 15: ΞΔ mings Br ula. 
ver. 11, Ad/ the rest. (Sch. begins ver. 12 with Ὅτι ὁ μείζων.) (WH) 
1 Cor. vii. 33,34 μεμέρισται ἡ γυνὴ Kai ἡ παρθένος. (Various readings.) 
ver. 33, St) WH; Lu.—St® A Sz Tr Br V D include μεμέρισται 
alone in ver. 33. 
ver. 34, All the rest. 
2 Cor.i.6,7 ΚΚαὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς ἡμῶν βεβαία ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν 
ver. 7, St A We G™mu Sch Sz WH; Ge Br Lu V J. 


474 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


ver. 6, All the rest. 
2Cor.ii. 10,11 Iva μὴ πλεονεκτηθῶμεν ὑπὸ τοῦ σατανᾶ" 
ver 11, St ΒΑ M Mt! ἃ K Sch Tn Sz LH Th BI Al Wd Tr 
ΠΕ Wily Ge Br Bp Lu Vij: 
ver. 10, BS HS We Elz Cur F Mas Be W Mt?; D. Ge (not Gen) 
begins ch. ii. with 1. 23, numbering i. 23, 24, as il. 1, 2, and ii. I-17 
as 11. 3-19. 
— — 12,13 Οὐκ ἐσχηκα ἄνεσιν τῷ πνεύματί pov, TO μὴ εὑρεῖν με Titov τὸν ἀδελφόν 
μου" 
ver. 13, St BY A ML. Ir T Scr WH; Ge Br Bp Lu Vf: 
ver. 12, B® HS We Eiz Cur F Mas Be W Mt G Καὶ Sch Tn Sz H 
Th BI Al Wd; D. 
—v.14,15 κρίναντας τοῦτο, ὅτι εἰ, εἷς ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανεν, ἄρα οἱ πάντες 
ἀπέθανον. 
ver. 14, St ΒΡΙ͂ A We G™™ K Sch Tn H Th Tr WH; Ge Br Bp 
iu VF: 
ver. 15, B85 HS Elz Cur F M Mas Be W Mt Gm Sz L Bl Al Wd 
AV seeg. 1D). 
— viii. 13,14 Ev τῷ viv καιρῷ τὸ ὑμῶν περίσσευμα, εἰς TO ἐκείνων ὑστέρημα, 
ver. 14, St A Tr WH; Br Lu V.— B® Gmai Sch Sz, and Ge Bp J, 
include also in ver. 14 the words ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ἰσότητος, which precede 
the above. 
ver. 13, B® HS We Elz T and all the rest. 
— x. 4,5 λογισμοὺς καθαιροῦντες, 
Weleo Zi, Sie JAY 5 ΤΥ ΒΕ: 
ver. 5. All the rest. (WH) 
Luther begins cap. xi. with x. 17. 
— xi.8,9 Καὶ παρὼν πρὸς ὑμᾶς καὶ ὑστερηθεὶς, οὐ κατενάρκησα οὐδενός * 
ver. Ὁ, St Be’ A We Wd Tr WH; Ge Br Bp Lu V D J. 
ver. ὃ, B® HS Elz T and all the rest. 
Gal. ii. 19, 20 Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι. 
ver. 19, St B57 A Gmin K Tn Th Tr; Ge Br Bp Lu V.— Mt? includes 
also in ver. 19 the words that follow: ζῶ dé, οὐκέτι ἐγὼ, ζῇ δὲ Ev ἐμοὶ 
χριστός. 
ver. 20, B® HS We Elz T, and all the rest; J’ (WH) 
—v. 22, 23 mpadryc, ἐγκράτεια " 
ver. 23, St BY A -M Gm ΘΌΠ ΒΖ EH Th Al Tr T Scr WH πὸ 
Br Bp) V J. 
ver. 22, B55 HS We Elz Cur F Mas Be W Mt G™2 K Tn BI Wd; 
1 19: 
Eph. i. 10, 11 ἐν αὐτῷ. 
ver. 10, St ΒΗ, A We Μ Gmai Sch Sz L H BI ΑἹ Wd Tr T Ser; 
Ge Br Bp Lu V J. 
ver. 11, B® HS Elz Cur F Mas Be W Mt K Tn Th; D (WH). 
— ἢ. 14,15 τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὑτοῦ " 
ver. 14, St A Β18985 Tr WH; Br Lu V. 
ver. 15, Ad the rest. 
—ili.17,18 ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἐῤῥιζωμένοι καὶ τεθεμελιωμένοι. 


ver. 17, St ΒΗ A Sch Th Tr WH; Ge Br Bp Lu V J. 


VERSE-DIVISIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 475 


ver. 18, B® HS We Elz T and all the rest. 

Phil. i. 16,17 Οἱ μὲν ἐξ ἐριθείας.... τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου. 11 Οἱ δὲ ἐξ ἀγάπης... κεῖμαι. 

G K Sch Tn Sz L H Th Al Wd Tr T WH (and so St® V) ¢rans- 
pose vv. 16 and 17, with the exception of οἱ μέν and oi δέ, reading 
οἱ μὲν ἐξ ἀγάπης, κ. τ. Δ. 11 οἱ δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας͵ x. τ. A. Of these, G 
Κ L™in H Th WH retain the old numbering. 

—ii.7,8 καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπυς. 
ver. 7, St B57 A Gmai Sch Sz Tr T (εχο ἢ) WH; Ge Br Bp Lu V Ὁ. 
ver. 8, B® HS We Elz Cur F M Mas Be W Mt Gain K Tn LH 

T# Th Bl Al Wd Scr; J. 

— iii. 13,14 ἕν dé, τὰ μὲν ὀπίσω ἐπιλανθανόμενος, τοῖς δὲ ἔμπροσθεν ἐπεκτεινόμενος, 
ver, 13; st ΒΡ Ὁ Β] Wd Tr Scr WH; Ge) Br ΒΡ Lu V J. 
ver. 14, B® HS We Elz T and all the rest. 

Col. i. 21,22 Nuvi δὲ ἀποκατήλλαξεν [. ν. ἀποκατηλλάγητε] 

Ver, 55, δὲ A We ΤΥ WH; Br Lu Vi Ὁ). 
ver. 21, All the rest. 

Ι Thess. i. 2,3 ἀδιαλείπτως 
ver. 2, St A ΒΙ Al Wd Tr WH; Lu V. But St®! A Tr WH con- 

nect the word with μνημονεύοντες. 
ver. 3, B HS We Elz T and all the rest. Br Lat. ver. 2, Ital. ver. 3. 
But Ge connects the word with what precedes. 
— ii. 6,7 Δυνάμενοι Ev βάρει εἶναι ὡς Χριστοῦ ἀπόστολοι" 
ver. 7, St B®? A Gmai Sch Sz Tr WH; Ge Br Bp Lu V. 
ver. 6, All the rest. 
—— 11,12 Παρακαλοῦντες ὑμᾶς καὶ παραμυθούμενοι, 
ver. 12, St ΒΡ A Tr WH; V. So Br in the Lat., but in the Ital. 
esortato is put in ver. 11. 

ver. 11, A// the rest. Bl Wd, with Ge Bp J, also include καὶ μαρτυρόμενοι 
in ver. II. 

Ge includes “as a father his children” in ver. 11. 

Philem. 11, 12 Ov ἀνέπεμψα᾽ 
ver. 12, St Bo, 65, 82. 88. 98. A Gmai Sch Sz Tr WH; Ge Br Bp V D J. 
ver. 11, Bmin 65, 67,8) 99 HS We Elz Cur F M Mas Be W Mt K Tn 

ἘΠΕ ΠΡ bs lee VV α ΤῸ elect 

— 23, 24 Μάρκος, 

ver. 24, St ΒΑ HS We (see below) M Be Mt! Gmai K Sch Sz L 
ΗΠ ἈΠ ir ay iGe ΒΥ ΒΡ Ἐπ Ὺ Dale 

ver. 23, Elz Cur F Mas Bl Wd.— Elz W Gm Mt? Tn Scr WH 
are doubtful. 

We unites vv. 18, 19, so that We vv. 19-22 = St vv. 20-23. We 
also unites vv. 24, 25, numbered as ver. 23. 

Heb. i. 1,2 Ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων [/. v. ἐσχάτου] τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, 
ver. 2, St ΒΕ A Gm Sch Sz Tr Scr WH; Ge Br Bp Lu V D J. 
ver. 1, B® HS We Elz Cur F M Mas Be Mt G™™ Καὶ Sch Tn LH 

Th Bl Al Wd T. 

—iii.9, 10 Τεσσαράκοντα én 
Ven τὸ Ξὸὶ ἃ Τὶ Wills Br Ve 
ver. 9, Al/ the rest. 

—vii. 20, 21 οἱ μὲν γὰρ χωρὶς ὁρκωμοσίας εἰσὶν ἱερεῖς γεγονότες " 


476 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


ver. 20, St ΒΕ A We M Mt! Gmai Sch Sz L ΗΒ Al Tr T WH; 
Ge Br Bp Iu V Ὁ: 
ver. 21, B® HS Elz Cur F Mas Be W Mt? Gmm K Tn H# Th Bl 
Wd Ser; J. 
Heb. x. 22, 232 καὶ λελουμένοι [2. v. λελουσμένοι] TO σῶμα ὕδατι καθαρῷ, 
ver. 22, St B®? A We Gmai Sch Tn Sz H Al Tr Scr; Ge Br Bp Lu 


V D J (WH). 
ver. 23, BS HS Elz Cur ΕΜ Mas Be W Mt Gm K L Th Bl 
Wd T. 


—Xll. 22,232 πανηγύρει 
ver. 22, St B®? A We Tr; Ge Br Bp Lu V. 
ver. 23, B® HS Elz T and all the rest. But Be G ΚΙ, H* Th Bl Al 
T omit the comma after ἀγγέλων, which they join with πανηγύρει. 
Al includes kai μυριάσιν, ἀγγέλων πανηγύρει in ver. 23. 
I Pet. ii. 7,8 Καὶ λίθος προσκόμματος, καὶ πέτρα σκανδάλου" 
ver. 8, St BA Gm Sch Tn Sz‘ Tr Scr WH: Ge Br Bp ΤΠ 
ver. 7, B® HS We Elz Cur ΕΜ Mas Be W Mt K L Th BI Al 
Wd Ti; D. 
—iii. 15,16 Mera πρᾳὕτητος καὶ φόβου, 
Ver TO ΞΡ ΒΡ ἈΠ τ; Ge Br Bp Τὰν Ve 
ver. 15, 4 the rest. B® also includes in ver. 15 συνείδησιν ἔχοντες 
ἀγαθήν. 
1 John ii. 12,14 Τράψω [2. v. ἔγραψα] ὑμῖν͵ παιδία, ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν πατέρα. 
Welt Aveo bess.) 0) 152. ΒΒ ΘΒ. ἀνε ΤΥ ΝΗ; ΕΒ ΒΡ ΤῸ: 
ver. 15, pmin 65, 67,8) 9 HIS Elz T and all the rest. 
Rev. ii. 27, 28 Qe κἀγὼ εἴληφα παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου" 
ver. 28, St B57 A Gmai Sch Sz-Tr WH; Ge Br Bp Lu V. 
ver. 27, B® HS We Elz Gm T and all the rest. 
— xvii. 9, 10 καὶ βασιλεῖς ἑπτά εἰσιν. 
ver. 9, St B57 A Sch Tr WH; Ge Br Bp Lu V D. 
ver. 10, Al/ the rest. 
— xviii. 16,17 Ore μιᾷ ὥρᾳ ἠρημώθη ὁ τοσοῦτος πλοῦτος. 
ver. 17, St ΒΕ A We Οταὶ Sch Sz Tr; Ge Br Bp Lu V J. 
ver. 16, B® HS Elz Gmin T and all the rest. (WH) 


These, I believe, are all the instances in which Elz 1633 or T (ed. 8) differ 
in the verse-division from St 1551. There are still other places in which either 
some editions of the Greek N. T. (as that of Mill), or some of the early modern 
translations (Ge Bp Lu J), or the Clementine Vulgate, differ from these three. 

In the subjoined instances, the full-faced numerals mark the verse to which 
the editions or translations named transfer the given words or phrases from 
the verse in which they stand in St Elz T. 

MATT 10,2.8 Ἰάκωβος ὁ τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου, καὶ ᾿Ιωάννης ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ" 
M V;— 20,4.5 Οἱ δὲ ἀπῆλθον. Scr, Ge Bp Tac; — 22,41.42 λέγων, M Gmai, 
MARK 9,I-50 = 8,39.9,1-49 Lu V;—12,14.15 δῶμεν ἢ μὴ δῶμεν; Ge Bp J. 
LUKE 1,73.74 τοῦ δοῦναι ἡμῖν Ge J;—9,42 = 42.48 (Et increpavit) V, and 
43-44 = 44 V; — 16,22.23 ἐν τῷ ἅδῃ (om. καὶ) V (et sepultus est in inferno); 
— 17,3530 = 35 V, 37 = 36.37 V. JoHN 4,138.14 ὃς δ᾽ ἂν πίῃ ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος οὗ 


VERSE-DIVISIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 477 


ἐγὼ δώσω αὐτῷ, ov μὴ διψήσῃ [ 2. v. -σει] εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα" V;—6,51 = 51.52 
(si quis etc.) V and 52-71 = 53-72 V;—11,34.80 Λέγουσιν αὐτῷ: Κύριε, ἔρχου 
καὶ ide. M Mt!;— 56.57 = 56 V;—13,80.31 ἦν δὲ νὺξ ὅτε ἐξῆλθε, We M 
Be Mt Th Scr. 

AcTs 7,55-50 = 55 V edd. Van Ess, T, but not so edd. Rom. 1592, 1861 
(Vercellone); 57-60 = 56-59 V edd. Van Ess, T, but not edd. Rom. 1592, 
1861 ;— 7,60.8,1 Σαῦλος dé ἦν συνευδοκῶν τῇ ἀναιρέσει αὐτοῦ. V; —8,7 = 78 
(multi autem) V edd. Van Ess, T, and 8.9 = 9 edd. Van Ess, T, but not so edd. 
Rom. 1592, 1861; —8,19.20 Πέτρος δὲ εἶπε πρὸς αὐτόν͵ V; —9,28.29 Kai []. v. 
om. καὶ] παῤῥησιαζόμενος ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Κυρίου ᾿Τησοῦ [1]. v. om. Ἰησοῦ] B 
HS Be Scr, Ge Bp J; —13 30.31 V (qui visus est per dies multos his) ;— 
14,6.7 =6 V, and 8-28 = 7-27 V;—16,37.88 V (et ipsi nos eiiciant);— 
24,12.18 οὔτε κατὰ τὴν πόλιν: V.~ 

ROM 1,9.10 πάντοτε ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου J ;—3,25.26 ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ 
Geov, Lu J. 2 Co 13,12 = 12.18 (aordlovra, «.7.A.) Bp J, and 13 = 14 Bp J. 
PHIL 4,21.22 ᾿Ασπάζονται ὑμᾶς οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ ἀδελφοί. St V. 1 THESS 4,112.12 
=11 V edd. Van Ess, T, and 13-18 = 12-17 V edd. Van Ess, T, but not 
edd. Rom. 1592, 1861. 2 THESS 2,10.11 10 V edd. Van Ess, T, and 12- 
17 = 11-16 V edd. Van Ess, T, but not edd. Rom. 1592, 1861. 1 TIM 6,21 
= 21.29 (Ἢ χάρις, κ. τ. A.) Gmai Sch Sz H Al Tr ΤΆ, ὅ9 and N. T. triglott. 
1854. ΒΡ, 6, 82, 88. 98 number the subscription to 1 TIM as 6,22. 3 JOHN 
ΠΡ ΞΘ ΤΑ (το ΒΡΝ |. ΜῈΝ 12,19 17 ΞΕ 1350 Iu) J. 


Luther begins 772 9 with 9,2; 1 Οὐ τι with 11,2; 2 (Ὁ 2 with 1,23 (so Ge"); 
2 Co 11 with 10,17; Gal 6 with 5,25; Co/ 4 with 4,2; Heb 5 with 4,14; Rev τὰ 
with 11,3; 12 with 11,15; 13 with 12,18 (so J). 


This list is incomplete, but to enter into further details would be here out 
of place. 


er δ δῇ 

ΠΝ ον 
ty ΠῚ HAA. a rt ays Ἢ 
EO ἈΝ Ἢ 
Ν᾿ νὴ ΤᾺ δ, 


Δ ἌΝ my 


᾿ fi 
ιν 
J 


Fert i 


pa) κ᾽ ΩΝ 

᾿ ae in ᾿ Ἣν ἢ ie he 

Ὶ He fr x ai Γὴ 9 fa ΝΠ μὰ poe ri it 

ἣν ary RLM ie fry) ron ht 

i ΝῊ» Ϊ ἢ ᾿ 

i eset i, Ἢ i ty, 
et. 

‘ane wrk ΩΝ 


ἢ Ms sc rae | 
ae i 
el at 


δ 
hi ” 


ὑπ Ce eh anne va 
\ a 5° ἡ he ᾿ εν eee ᾿ ὯΝ ἢ; Ἧ fas ne nt Ἷ Δ" =) ae υ 
Bix ἐν ie γι ψ' é ᾿ ᾿ A }} i ᾿ ἢ Pe 7 am ei ἮΝ 4 My Me by 


¢ ὶ σὰ ' i ; ide qf na Ἦ 
ΝᾺ ἈΕΊ ἢ δ at’ εὖ ᾿ ; ry) 
f My Ὶ δ νι | if ' M bi , "νυ ἔν nen yy Ἐ ᾿ ei 


ΓΝ A a, ake ee Ay. 


[γ᾿ i 
" a> 
ul ΤῊΝ δὲ 


; ὶ : ' ee uty Whi) ἣ ΝΥ 
" " i 2 i ἶ ‘, ; J ἵ Ψ ‘ ὶ y ; ‘i ἣν ‘| ΜΗ. ͵ 7 x { 
fe ΕΓ ᾿ "ἢ ΨΥ τῆν ἊΝ ΣῊΝ 
νὼ aN τὰ} 2 ἐν i rel hy et ye at 

a ‘ ’ i 
’ ᾿ : ἐν νυ » 
7 t ᾿ ia’ 

| ᾿ . » 
‘ 0 a rity 

i i 

j ᾿ ! ᾿ ἢ if t 
» ᾿ ἣν Γ΄ Ἰ ' a 
Y ] , ᾿ 

yi 1 A 

7 ty 

§ a A 
A abe ‘ 
᾿ 
- 4 ͵ 
ϑ Ua ͵ 
\ 


if  INDEX- OF NAMES,. TOPICS, ἌΝ ΙΕ ς WORDS. 


ABBOT, EzRA: traits illustrated, 184; 
criticised, 249, 414-416, 435, 437- 

Abbreviations in MSS., 148 sq., 312. 
(See Manuscripts.) 

Accolti, Francesco (Aretinus), 299. 

Acts, Book of: 162, 168, 177, 210 sq., 
217, 218, 220, 299; apocryphal, 158, 
410. 

Adamantius, 445. 

Additions to Biblical Text, 205, 239. 

Adimantus the Manichaean, 264, 268, 


278. 
Advocates’ δι eh: of, 187. 
ffon-Christ, 390, 4 

Zéschylus, oldest we of, 211. 

ZEthiopic Version, 181, 212, 221, 228, 
230, 231, 248, 252, 275, 276, 289, 305 
56., 310, 326-330, 357, 449. 

“ Alcimus,” 303. (See Arator.) 

Alcuin, 243, 245-247, 265, 278, 280. 

Aldine edition of 1518, 210. 

Alexander of Alexandria, 
277) 251. 

Alford, Henry, 115, 119, 122, 132, 133, 
179, 23, 24% 273 274, 282, 204, 295 
308, 313, 314, 317-319) 349, 351, 3 
362, 366 370, 306, 436, 440, 445, 447 
450, 457, 469. 

Alternate Readings in ancient authors, 
278. 

Ambrose of Milan, 263, 264, 278, 303, 
308; Pseudo-Ambrosius, 394. 

Ambrosiaster, 2.5. Hilary the Deacon 
(7.2-), 304. 

Ammon, C. F., 399. 

Ammonian Sections, 154. 
bian Sections.) 

Amphilochius of Iconium, 
3293392: 

Ancyra Synod, 243, 247, 254, 280. 

Anderson, Christopher, 176. . 

Antonius “ Melissa,” 300. 

Antwerp Polyglott, 327, 468. 

Apocryphal New Testament: 158, 160, 
169; Gospels, 158, 168, 169, 410; 
Acts; 158, 4ιο; Revelations, 168, 
169, 410. 

Apostolic Constitutions, 115, 125, 130, 
267, 297, 315, 323-3251 354, 306, 358, 
409, 410. 


258, 260, 


(See Euse- 


287, 302, 


Apostolic Fathers, 127, 129, 325. 
Fathers of the Church.) 

Arabic Version: of the Polyglott, 309, 
449; Erpenian, 310, 329. 

Arator not Alcimus, 303. 

Arians, 267, 283, 285, 313 Sq., 325 sq., 
378, 387, 405, 426, 459. 

Armenian Version, 181, 212, 221, 22 
230, 23h 252, 276, 288, 296, 312, 321, 

357: 46 3: 

yielded L. Με, ze. Samuel Crell, 
398. 

Article, the Greek, use of, 451 sq. 

Asterisks in MSS., 23 

Athanasian Creed, 153 sq., 284, 381. 

Athanasius, 230, 243, 248, 259, 260, 
279, 281, 282, 298, 306, 310, 314, 325, 
326, 370, 383, 388, 395: 

Augustine, 264, 278, 288, 302, 303, 304, 
331, 370, 388, 394, 445. 

Avia dei, τῆς Anna, 323. 

ἄγγελος of the Son, 392. 

αἰτέω, 113-136. 

ἄνθρω; πος, “contracted i in MSS., 148, 149. 

ἀπό after αἰτέω, 128, 129. 

ἀξιόω, 

aivrébeoe, 394. 


(See 


132. 


BABRIUS, I15, 124, 126, 130, 132 

Barnabas, Epistle of, 115, 125, 127, 120, 
130, 132, 160; Acts of, 410. 

Barstow, Z. S., 396. 

Basil of Caesarea, 228, 254, 261, 265 
Sq. 277, 280, 306, 310, 384, 305. 

Basil of Seleucia, 231, 247, 280. 

Bauer, G. L., 399. 

Baumgarten- -Crusius, Ludwig Fried- 


rich Otto, 132, 134, 370, 308, 399; 
430, 449, 469. 
Baumgarten, 5. J., 391. 


Baumlein, W., 273. 

Rea how written in Cod. Vat., 
143, 145- 

Bemcoine and Lenfant, 134, 297, 366. 

Becker’s Charikles, 137. 

Beda, 308, 309. 

Beet, john Agar, 340, 346, 354, 404. 

Belsham, We 398. 

Belsheim, a 

Bengel, J. A 


4 ΠΝ 122, 133, 188, 213, 


480 


218, 222, 233, 240, 283, 307, 317, 396, 
461, 463. 

Benner, 396. 

Benson, George, 449. 

Berlin Academy, 173. 

Bernard, Edward, 124. 

Bernhardt’s Gothic Version (¢.v.), 203. 

Bertheau’s edition of Liicke (¢.v ), 462. 

Bertholdt’s Einleitung, 188, 376, 464. 

Bethesda (Bethzatha), the angel at, 
198, 237, ; 

Beyschiag, Willibald, 403, 449. 

Beza, Theodore, 289, 396, 409; his edi- 
tions of the N. T, 210, 217, 234, 462, 
463, 465, 466, 468. 

Bible, English: early versions, 289; 
Whittingham’s, 466; Bishops’, 449, 
469; Geneva, 359, 449, 465, 466, 469 ; 
King James's, 217, 227, 469; Blay- 
ney’s edition, 223 sq.; “Exact Re- 
print,” 223, 224, 470; misprints in 
editions of, 213, 224, 466; Tischen- 
dorf’s edition of the N. T., 170 sq.; 
Greek text underlying the N. T., 204 
Sq., 209 Sq., 217 56. ; committee for 
revision of, 183, 213, 272, 273, etc., 
see Revision ; German, 165, 382, 449, 
458-463, 469; Greek, 140 sqq., 459, 
460; Latin, 464. (See Mew Testa- 
ment, Dutch, German, Latin Ver- 
sions, Old Latin, Vulgate.) 

Birch, A., 193. 296, 408, 468. 

birks, T. R., 200. 

Bleek, Friedrich, 132, 320, 439. 

Bloomfield, S. T., 124, 133, 135, 179, 
295, 439, 448, 450, 469. " 

Bockeler, Otto, 139. 

Boderie, Le Fevre de la, 327. 

Bodleian Library, 159, 186, 327, 393. 

Boehme, C. J., 401. 

Braune, Karl, 115, 132, 439, 457. 462. 

Breathings, the Greek, confusion in 
use of, 289. 

Breslau University, 157. 

Bretschneider, Karl Gottlieb, 124, 132, 
135, 372, 401, 405, 409, 449. 

Breviarium Fidei, the, 309, 395. 

British and Foreign Bible Society, 
Library of, 179, 220; ed. of Ae- 
thiopic, 330. 

British Museum: Tischendorf, 159, 
161; Tregelles, 181; catalogue, 187 ; 
its MSS. specially examined, 326, 
327 329; 330; 408. 

Brown, David, 294. 

Briickner, B. B., 273, 457. 

Brunet de Presle, 147 sq. 

Bryennios’s Clement, 324. 

Bucer (Butzer) on Rom. ix. 5, 400. 

Bugenhagen, John, (Pomeranus), 461, 


463. 
Bull, Bp., 371. 


CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Bullinger, Heinrich 463. 

Bunsen, C. C. J., 324, 391; his Ana- 
lecta Ante-Nicaena, 253; his Bibel- 
werk, 274, 294, 319, 321, 403. 

Burgon, J. W., 140-154, 179, 197, 228, 
285) 357-389, 392, 395, 397, 406, 407, 


432. 

ἘΠ Edward, 301, 321, 322, 325, 
326, 390, 391, 427, 428. 

Buttman’s (Alex.) N. T. Grammar, 
290, 364, 410, 440, 447, 453. 454, 457. 

Buttmannn's (Ph.) Greek Testament, 
189-196, 319, 405. 

βίβλος, 137. 


CALLESTINE I., pope, 307, 308. 

Ceesarius, 262, 280, 388. 

Calvin, John, 337, 396, 421, 426, 440, 
463, 460. 

Campbeil, George, 118. 

Campbell, Lewis, 404, 422, 447, 449. 

Cassell’s Bible Dictionary, 182. 

Cassian, 308, 309, 395. 

Cassiodorus, 308. 

Catena of Andreas, 300, 301. 

Catholic Epistles, MSS. of, 211, 217, 
220; Cod. A and Cod. Sin. in, 311. 

Cave, William, 252, 262, 276, 300, 302, 
389, 394) 427. 

Caylus, Count de, 139. 

Chariton, 115, 130. 

Cheyne, T. K., 376. 

Cholin, Peter, 463. 

Christ: the name in MSS., 205, 312 sq., 
315; appellations, 259, 266, 267, 280; 
sonship, 260, 346, 348; Paul’s lan- 
guage concerning, 319, 365, 367, 369, 
374; Arian view of, 285; Socinian 
views of, 378; blood of, 324; king- 
dom of, 446; force of the article 
with, 386, 414. (See Jesus, Zon.) 

Chrysostom, 135, 162, 228, 231, 261, 
267, 269, 281, 282, 287, 298, 375, 378, 
384, 387, 445; Pseudo-Chrys., 306. 

“Church of God,” ‘“‘Church of the 
Lord,” 294, 312, 315, 317) 330- 

Cicero, 114, 119, 120, 127. 

Clarke, Samuel, 324, 400. 

Clau-en, H. N., 319, 403. 

Clement of Alexandria, 228, 243, 247, 
252, 253, 268, 269, 276, 279, 281, 282, 
287, 288, 323, 444. 

Clement of Rome, 127, 129, ΤΟΙ, 171, 
228, 323-325, 349, 354, 362, 410, 434, 
446, 447, 455- 

Cobet, C. G., 349 sq., 422, 428. (See 
Greek New Testament.) 

CopeEx (cf. AZanuscripts) :— 

Cod. Aleph, 140-154, 159-161, 163, 
164, 166-170, 179, 181, 182, 200, 201, 
211, 210, 222, 223, 225, 228, 230, 231, 
238, 240, 241, 249, 251, 268, 274, 275, 


INDEX OF NAMES, TOPICS, AND GREEK WORDS 


283, 239. 290; 305; agreement of 
with B in questionable readings, 
310, 311, 315, 316, 323, 346, 407, 408, 
432, 435. (S.c Cod. Friderico-Augus- 
tanus below.) 

Cod. Alexandrinus (A), 128, 129, 146, 
161, 167, 170, 182, 189, 194,211, 224, 
250, 208, 275, 283, 290, 295, 305, 311, 
346, 357, 406-4038, 432, 436. 

Cod. Amiatinus, date of, 165, 177. 

Cod. Augiensis (F), 163, 174, 177, 
182, 218, 291, 316, 346, 407. 

Cod. B (Vaticanus), 140-154, 160, 
161, 163, 167, 168, 170. 178, 180- 
182, 189; collations of, 193 sq., 200, 
211 ΣΟ 221 22,5) 220.230) 221) 25; 
240, 241, 240; 250, 251, 268, 274, 275, 
283, 289, 291, 295, 305, 307; agree- 
mei.t of with Aleph in question ble 
readings, 310, 311, 315, 3'6, 323, 346, 
407, 408, 432, 435. 

Cod. B of the Apocalypse, 160, 161. 

Cod. Bezze (D or Cantabrigiensis), 
149, 163, 182, 210, 211, 217, 218, 228, 
230, 231, 236, 238, 240, 275, 280, 290, 
295, 290, 305, 309, 311, 316, 346. 

C. ἃ. Kobbiensis, 160. 

Cod. Brixianus, 228, 220. 

Cod. C (Cod. Ephraemi, the Parisian 
palimpsest), 142, 146, 157, 160, 167, 
200, 211, 229, 231, 238, 240, 249, 250, 
251, 268, 274, 275, 288, 295, 309, 311, 
316, 346, 407, 4038, 432. 

Cod. Chisianus, 167. 

Cod. Claromontanus, 157, 160, 177, 
178, 182, 210, 212, 407. 

Cod. A, 151, 240, 250, 268, 275, 283, 
280. 

Cod. E, 145, 177, 211, 220; 250, 268, 
274, 275, 288, 295, 296, 305, 311, 316. 

Cod. E of the Acts (Cod. Laudi- 
anus), 145, 162, 296. 

Cod. F (od. Boreeli), 160, 250, 268, 
274, 288, 292. 

Cod. f, see Cod. Brixianus. 

Cod. Friderico-Augustanus, 141, 159, 
160, 167. (See Cod. Aleph, above.) 

Cod. Fuldensis, 165. 

Cod. G, 151, 177, 268, 274,:288, 316, 
346, 407. 

Cod. I’, 177, 274. 275, 288. 

Cod H ot the Gospels, 250, 268, 274, 
27, 28.", 201. 202. 

Cod. H of the Acts, 177, 309, 316. 

Cod. H of the Epistles, 212. 

ΟΠ ΠΕ 77; 250: 

Cod. K of the Gospels, 157, 177, 250, 
268, 274, 288. 

Cod. K of the Epistles, 316, 346, 407. 

Cod. L of the Gospels, 151, 157, 160, 
200, 210, 217, 228, 230, 231, 240, 240, 
250, 268, 274, 275, 283, 289, 291. 


481 


Cod. L of the Acts and Epistles, 177, 
309, 316, 346, 407, 408, 432. 

Cod. A, 177, 250, 268, 274, 275, 288, 
280. 

Cod. M, 157, 177, 250, 268, 274, 288. 

Cod. Marchalianus, 162. 

Cod. N, 160, 212. ; 

Cod. P (P.rfirianus), 162, 212, 275, 
289, 291, 309, 316. 

Cod. II, 274, 275, 288. 

Cod.1@}/1162,-20; 207. 

Cod. k, 162, 177, 178. 212 

Cod. Ros-anensis, 221, 238. 

Cod. S, 250, 268, 274, 288. 

Cod. Sarravianus of the Octateuch, 
162. 

Cod. Sinaiticus, see Cod. Aleph and 
Cod. Friderico-Augustanus. 

Coda, 200/210, 228.) ΖΞ 

Cod. 9, 160. 

Cod. U, 177, 250, 268, 274, 275, 288. 

Cod. V, 250, 268, 274, Ζ7 5: 

Cod. Vaticanus, see Cod. B. 

Cod. Wa, 160; W%, 162. : 

Cod. X, 177, 250, 268, 275, 289. 

Cod. Y, 160. 

Cod. Z (the Dublin palimpsest), 177, 
178, 212, 230, 231, 238, 240. 

Cod. Zacynthius, 141, 163, 178, 220, 
230. 

Coa. 1, 250, 268, 289. 

Cod. $3 (ze. Acts 13, Pauline Epp. 
17), 178, 230, 249, 250, 268, 274, 275, 
283, 292, 296. 

Cod. 69, 250, 268, 283, 287, 289, 291. 

Cod. 234 (Acts 57, Paul 72), 292. 
(See Manuscripts, Criticism, Lection- 
aries, etc.) 

Colenso, Bp. J. W., 403. 

Communicatio Idiomatum, 315. 

Complutensian Polyglott, 210, 217. 

Concordances, Biblical, 465, 467. (See 
Englishman’s, Nathan, Trommius, 
Young, etc.) 

Constantine the Great, 142, 269. 

Conybeare (W. J.) and Howson (J. 5.), 
132, 385, 439, 449 
ook, Canon, 411, 432. 

Coptic Version, 212, 221, 252, 268, 269, 
275, 276, 296, 357, 449. (See Lgyp- 
tian Versions.) 

Copyists, 140-150, 151, ΤΟΊ, 205, 222, 
227, 229. (See Manuscripts.) 

Coquerel, Athanase, 403. 

Councils: Antioch, 385; Carthage, 
304; Chalcedon, 381; Constantino- 
ple, 377, 381; Diamper, 329; Ephe- 
sus, 308, 381; Lateran, 323; Nice, 
300, 371, 377, 391, 382, 388. (See 
Synod.) 

Cowper, B. Harris, 171. 

Cozza, Father, 181, 408. 


482 


Cramer's Catenze, 262, 266, 203, 298, 
295, 299, 307, 392, 393. 

Crell, John, 378, 397, 409. 

Crell, Samuel, “L. M. Artemonius,” 

98. 

δι πὴς Hermann, 425, 445. 

Criticism, New Testament: opinions 
in England, 179; scholars there, 213; 
aids in, 217 sq.; principles of and 
their application, 222 sq., 239 sq., 
323. (Cf. Glosses, Manuscripts, Pale- 
ography, etc.) 

Crombie, 428. 

Crosby, Howard, 135. 

Crowfoot, 276. 

Cruciger (Creutziger), Kaspar, 463. 

Ctematius, Gell., 466. 

Curcellazus (Courcelles, Etienne de), 
400, 468. 

Cureton, W., 321, 322; Curetonian 
Syriac Version, 212, 221, 228, 231, 
2360, 252, 208, 269; 276. ὁ 

Cyprian, 228, 238, 304, 394. 

€yril of Alexandria, 228, 230, 243, 
245, 247, 254, 260, 262, 265, 266, 268, 
270, 277, 281, 287, 288, 292, 293, 306, 
313, 323, 345, 349; 370, 384, 387, 392, 
414; Pseudo-Cyril, 261, 268, 277, 
300. 

Cyril of Jerusalem, 260, 277, 279, 387. 

kai: contracted in MSS., 149; article 
omitted after, 452. 

κατά and μετά confounded in MSS., 
428; κατὰ θεόν, 428; κατὰ πνεῦμα, 
348; κατὰ σάρκα, 332-350, 384, 390, 

392; 393. oe 

κύριος, 136, 378 sq.; distinguished 
from θεός, 425 sq.; in Paul’s quota- 
tions, 426; κύριος and ὁ κίριος, 439; 
κύριος TOV κυρίων, 429. (See Lord.) 

χάρις, 362. 

χριστός and ὁ χριστός, 351, 378, 386, 
414. 

χε (χριστός), 149. 


DAILLE, JEAN, 240. 

Daniel, book of, 162, 167, 182. 

Darby, John Nelson, 297, 366. 

Davidson, Samuel, 179, 182, 186, 233, 
273, 294, 295, 307, 308, 310, 319, 
366, 404, 449, 462. 

De la Rue, 247, 265, 278, 279, 286, 287, 
301, 310, 389, 428, 448. 

Delitzsch, Franz, 172. 

Demosthenes, 432. 

D~’ Rossi, 214. 

Deus, 320 sqq-, 372, 378, 394, 400. 
(See θεός.) 

Devil, 286-293 passim. 

De Wette,, W. M: 1,132, 133, 188, 
233, 273, 295, 319, 35" 352; 37% 398, 
399; 402, 4 5, 409, 439, 447, 449, 457; 
462. 464. 


CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Didot, Firmin, 157. 

Didymus, 248, 254, 268, 276, 281, 288, 
259, 298. 

Dillmann’s Aethiop. Lexicon, 306. 

Dindorf, William, 124, 173, 306, 390. 

Diodati, John (Gio.), 469. 

Diodorus of Antioch and Tarsus, 392, 


393: 

Diognetus, Epistle to, 127, 129. 

Dion Cassius, 172. 

Dionysius of Alexandria, 388, 428; 
Pseudo-Di ‘nysius, 388. 

Dionysius of Malicarnassus, 456. 

Diosco ides, 152. 

“Dittography,” 436. 
teleuton.» 

Doctrina Orientalis, 25 3: 

Doctrine, Christian, its disclosure 
progressive, 374 sq. 

Doddridge, Philip, 398. 

Doederlein, J. C., 297, 366. 

Doederlein’s (Ludwig) Latin Syno- 
nyms, 119, 127. 

Donaldson, James, 324. 

Dorner, Isaac August, 324, 398. 

Doxologies, 351, 354, 355, 358 56:; 
Rabbinical use ot, 362, 363, 380, 
354, 397, 405, 406, 410, 417, 437. 

arn md, James, 254, 266, 273, 278, 
282. 

Drusius, Johannes, 426. 

Dublin Palimpsest, see Cod. Z. 

Ducaeus, (Fronton le Duc), 300. 

Du Pin (Dupin), Louis Ellies, 310. 

Dureau de la Malle, 139. 

Diisterdieck, Friedrich, 114, 119, 457. 

Dutch Translation, 170, 184, 274, 294, 
404, 466. (See Bz6/e.) 

Dwight, Timothy, 332, 339, 340, 342, 
343, 35% 359, 361, 396, 406, 421, 422. 

Δαυείδ, contracted in MSS., 149. 

δέομαι, 123, 125, 132 Sq. 

διά in reference to Christ, 369. 

δόξα in doxologies, 362. 


(See Homeo- 


EADIE, JOHN, 132, 370, 439. 

Ebionites, 374. 

Ebrard, Johann Heinrich August, 462. 

Eckermann, J. C. R., 401, 4065. 

Egyptian Versions, 212, 276. (See 
Coptic, Memphitic, Sahidic, Thebaic.) 

Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried, 185, 296. 

Ekker, 324. 

Ellicott, Bp. Charles John, 124, 132, 
319, 358, 439, 440, 442-445, 447, 448, 


457. 
Benen Jakob, 456. 
Ely Lectures, 362, 377, 385. 
Elzevir Editions, 189, 190, 192, 466 sq. 
Encyclopedia Britannica, 137. 
Englishman’s Concordance (Greek; 
Hebrew), 177, 465. 
Ephraem the Syrian, 328, 329. 


INDEX OF NAMES, TOPICS, AND GREEK WORDS 


Epiphanius, 231. 242, 243, 247, 253-255, 
267, 268, 276, 277, 279, 280, 281, 238, 
306, 384, 391, 395. 

Erasmus: his critical apparatus, 217, 
340, 353, 306, 397-400, 409, 427, 449, 
451, 453, 459, 465, 466; his edi- 
tions, 210, 217, 218, 234, 289; his 
Paraphrase, 297. 

Erizzo, see Miniscalchi-Erizzo. 

Ernesti, H. F. T. L., 400, 449. 

Ernesti, J. A., 370. 

Ersch and Gruter’s Cyclopedia, 138. 

Esdras, Books of, 147. 

Estienne, see Stephens. 

Estius (Van Est), Gulielmus, 396. 

Esther, Book of, 167, 352. 

Eternal Generation, 267. 

“Eucherius,” see Autherius. 

Eulogius, 395. 

Eunomius, 247, 256, 257, 267, 277. 

Euripides, 172, 211. 

“Eusebian Sections,” 141. 
monian Sections.) 

Eusebius, 142, 151, 177, 228, 230, 243, 
246, 247, 255, 258, 259, 265, 268, 260, 
277-279, 281, 252, 284, 302, 370, 390, 
395, 428. 

Eustathius, 259, 268, 269, 277, 287, 301, 
329; 395: 

Euthalius, 296, 300. 

Eutherius ot Tyana, 301, 329. 

Euthymius (Zigabenus or Zygadenus), 
135, 260, 262, 268, 277, 287. 

Evangelistaries, 220, 288. (See Manu- 
scripts.) 

Evangelium Palatinum, 160. 
Latin Versions.) 

Ewald, Heinrich, 132, 133, 273, 294, 
312, 319, 376, 422, 439, 447, 449, 457- 

“Exact Reprint,” see Azble, English. 

Excerpta Theodoti, 243, 253, 269. 

Exodus, Book of, 147. 

“Expositor, The,” 355, 396. 

Ezra, Book of, 147. 

ἔθυεν in a passage in Suidas, 124. 

εἴη, 355, 410, 423. 

eit: force of, 383; εἰμι ἐπὶ, 351; 
ἐστίν in doxologies, 355, 410, 423; 
ἔστω in doxologies, 355, 409, 410, 423. 

ἐν in reference to Christ, 369; ἐν υἱῷ, 


(See Am- 


(See 


_ 453: 

ἐπιφάνεια, 441, 446, 454-456. 

ἐρωτάω, 113-136. 

ἐσταυρώθη contracted in Cod. Sin., 149. 

εὐαγγελίζεσθαι in Paul’s quotations, 426. 

εὐλογημένος : position of in doxologies, 
351, 358, 436; distinguished from 
εὐλογητός, 409 56. 

εὐλογητός : position of in doxologies, 
351, 380, 384, 385, 391; distinguished 
from εὐλογημένος, 409, 410, 436; 


483 


senses of, 437 54.; ὁ εὐλογητός esp. 
u-ed of God, 362. 


εὐχαριστῶ, 302. 


FABER STAPULENSIS, J. (Jacques Le 
Févre d'Etaple-), 464, 465. 

Fabricius, J. A., 187, 253, 267, 391. 

Facundus, Hermianensis, 302, 385. 

Fairbairn, Patrick, 449. 

“Faith ” in Heb: x. 23, A. V., 226. 

Farrar, Canon, 352, 355, 390, 450, 457- 

Fatherhood of God (g.v.), 271, 371, 
3741 374: 

Fathers of the Church, 170, 276, 297- 
305, 313, 329; as interpreters of 
Scripture, 248, 251, 255, 387, 393, 
445; their theo ogical language, 315, 

22, 323, 320-326, 352, 371, 375: 383, 
386, 401. (See Apostolic, Greek, 
Latin.) 

Faustinus, 264, 278. 

Faustus R<jensis, 308. 

Fell, John, 468. 

Ferrandus, 247, 267, 308, 395. 

Ferrar, Prof. W. H., 275. 

Ferrari, Ambrose, 265, 278. 

Field, Frederick, 298. 

Finetti, 299, 307. 

Flacius Iilyricus, 421. 

Flatt, 337, 396, 398, 439, 450. 

Fleury, Claude, 324. 

Forster, 463. ᾿ 

Franz’s Elem. Epigr. Graec., 289, 290. 

Fratres Poloni, 396. 

Frederick Augustus IT. of Saxony, 159. 

Fritzsche, Ὁ, F. A., 352, 354, 355, 359; 
3021 37 8r 402; 409) 22, 437, 447: 449. 


456. 

εἰ ἀν O. F., 168, 319, 356, 455: 

Fronto Ducaeus (Duc, Fronton le), 
300. 

Fulgentius, 243, 247, 257, 278, 279, 308, 
309, 395; Pseudo-Fulgentius, 310. 

Funk, F. X., 324. 


GaGE, WILLIAM L., 170. 

Gallandi, Andrew, his Azdliotheca re- 
ferred to, 257, 259, 260, 262, 264, 
277, 288, 391, 392. 

Garnier, Julien, his edition of Basil, 
266, 280, 310. 

Gaudentius, 247, 267, 280. 

Gebhardt, Oscar von, 166, 324, 325, 


4609. 
Gelasius of Cyzicus, 301, 395- 
G-nnadius, 387. 
Geoffrey of Monmouth, 186. 
Georgian Version, 288, 289, 309, 357- 
Georgius Trapezuntius, 256. 
German Versions, see Szble, Luther, 
Swiss, etc. 
Germanus, 277. 


484 


Gesenius, Wilhelm, 176, 182, 376. 

Gess, W. F., 335, 375, 382, 383, 385, 
449, 450, 457- ‘ 

Gifford, Edward Hamilton, 337, 338, 
347, 363, 396, 406, 411, 412, 414, 415, 
434-435. 

Gigus Librorum, 296. 

Ginsburg, Christian D., 376. 

Gloag, Paton J., 294. 

Glockler, Conrad, 401. 

Glosses, 229, 235, 278. 

Gnosticism, 321, 445; Gnostics, their 

* views of God, 390, 433. 

Goadby, Robert, 393. 

God: word of, 205, 367-369, 400; only- 
begotten (g.v.), 241-255; church of, 
294, 307; 311, 327; “flesh of,” ‘* body 
Of,’ 922,,325, 320%; “blood of,” 314, 
320-326, 328; suffering, 315, 320, 322, 
323, 327; “death of,” erc., 322; over- 
ruling, 353, 354; rank, 368; name, 
374, 378. 380, 402. (See Christ, 
Deus, Jesus, Lord, Unigenitus Deus, 
θεός, κύριος.) 

God the Son, 267, 282. (See Christ.) 

Godet, F., 133, 273, 382, 396, 414. 

Godwin, John H., 319, 404, 447. 

Gooding, Alfred, 405. 

Gospels: Apocryphal (g.v.) ; Tischen- 
dorf’s Harmony of, 166; date, 169 ; 
in the New Revision, 215-240; par- 
allel passages, 235, 230, 238; quota- 
tions in, 230, 231. 

Gothic Version, editions of, 135, 203, 
212, 221, 288. 

Gratz, 295. 

Greek Fathers, 241, 244-246, 257, 267, 
268, 277, 286, 287, 306, 313, 314, 392, 
395. (See Fathers, Apostolic, Latin.) 

Greek New Testament: Buttmann’s 
(g.v.), 189 sqq.; Hahn’s (¢.v.), 190 ; 
Stier and Theile’s, 190; Theile’s, 
190; Bagster’s “ Large-Print,” rot ; 
Griesbac 1’s (g.v.), 190, 204 sqq., 821 ; 
Tischendorf’s (g.v:) work, 160-174 ; 
“ Catholic edition,” 157: O. v. Geb- 
hardt’s (g.v.), 166; criticism, 175; 


Elzevir, 189, 101, 195; editions 
Of MOG Τ70} τ) LOS) ΖΘ 56: 2.27» 
284, 408, 469; principles, 179; 


GUD. M. Drs edition; 184,.185; 
187; Westcott and Hort’s (g.v.), 
197-203; Kuenen and Cobet’s (¢.v.), 
291, 319, 350, 405, 447; Green’s 
Twofold New Testament, 273; omis- 
sion, 314; verses, 464-467; “ Re- 
ceived Text,” 165, 166, 176, 177, 189, 
192, 195, 197, 211 Sqq., 216, 220, 230 
Sqq-, 235, 237, 294. (See under the 
names of the various editors.) 

Green, Samuel G., 440. 

Green, Thomas Sheldon, 179 233, 273, 
294, 313, 366, 449, 450, 453 


CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Gregory, C. R., 219, 292, 408, 431, 432. 

Gregory Nazianzen, 243, 247, 260, 262, 
263, 267-269, 277, 280, 281, 303, 329. 

Gregory of Nyssa, 243, 247, 255-257, 
Soe te AOE ων τ 
395: 

Gregory Thaumaturgus, 301. 

Griesbach, John James: #s a critic, 
179, 200; his Greek Testament, 189- 
195, 212, 213. 218. 222, 233, 242, 206, 
393. 305, 307, 305, 468. 

Grimm, C. L. Willibald, 396, 400, 455; 
his Lexicon, 124, 351, 356, 368, 384, 
409, 437. 

Grossmann, C. G. L., ines Τ72: 

Grotius, Hugo, 132, 134, 289, 370, 397, 
427, 449, 457. 

Gualther, Rudolph, 463. 

Guericke, H. E. F., 188, 248. 

Guhl and Koner, 137-139. 

Guizot, Ἐς ἘΞ ΟΣ τὴ: 

Gutbier, Aegidius, 327. 


HAHN, AuGustT, 398, 405, 469; his 
Greek New Testament, 199, 447. 

Hahn, Ὁ. L., 4o5. 

Haldane, Robert, 405. 

Hall, Isaac H., 184 sqq., 328, 470. 

Hamann, K. L. F., 165. 

Hammond, C. E., 294, 358, 409. 

Hammond, Henry, 396. 

Hansell, 162. 

Harless, G. C. A. von, 132, 409. 

Harmsen, Ernst, 396. 

Harnack, Adolr, 325. 

Harte’, J. (ed. of Cyprian), 304. 

Harvard College Library, 162, 184, 408. 

Harvey, Wigan, 435. 

Haupt, Erich, 457. 

Haymo, 445. 

Hearne, Thomas, his edition of Cod. 
Laudianus (g.v.), 162. 

Hebrew: languige, 356, 357; MSS., 
159; Dr. Tregelles’s aids in Hebrew 
study, 176; Hebrew Text of the 
Revision, 214. 

Hebrews, Epistle to the, 189, 256, 319, 
363, 447. (See Ludex of Biblical 
Lussages.) 

EHefele, C.J. von}, 221: 

Heinchen, F. A., 390. 

Heinrichs, J. H., 370, 449. 

Heliodorus, 455. 

Hellwag, 324. 

Hengstenberg, Ernst Wilhelm, 273, 
376. 

Heringa, J., 292. 

Tleqmas; suis 120, 127) 2, 159, 152. 
160. 

Herzog’s Encyclopedia, 376, 464. 

Hesychius, 126. 

Hexipla, The English, 176. 

Heydenreich, A. L. C., 450. 


INDEX OF NAMES, TOPICS, AND GREEK WCRDS 


Heyse, Theodor, 172. 

Hilary (Hilarius), 243, 247, 248, 263, 
264, 268, 276, 277, 282, 384, 394s 395. 

Hilary, the Deacon, 277, 302. (See 
Ambrosiaster.) 

Hilgenfeld, Adolf, 115, 130, 165, 169, 
188, 324, 356, 396. 

Hippolytus, 258, 268, 269, 277, 282, 
ie 323, 324, 378, 383, 390, 391, 428, 


444 
Hiirt, 6 F., 396. 
Hitzig, Ferdinand, 376. 
Hodge, Charles, 337, 342, 396, 421. 
Hoeppe, H., see A/ziller. 
Hoeschel, David, 265, 27 
Hofmann, J. CK von, Ἢ 
Holsten, C., a 
Holtzmann, H. J., 273, 274, 294, 319, 
403, 449, 457. 
Holy Spirit: the “Helper,” 133 sq.; 
deity of, 428, 429. 
Holzoausen, ἘΣ ΑΞ Μδι 


» 382, 396. 


Homeeoieleuton, 205, 206, 223, 220, 
234, 436. 
Horne’s Introduction, 180, 182, 241 ff.; 


Biblical Bibliography, 185, 186. 
EVOKty 1. ΑΨ. το 174, 178, LO7—203 
213, 233, 272, 276, 294, 295, 319, 353, 
366, 405, 422, 447, 469. (See West- 
colt.) : 
Huet, Pierre Daniel, 265, 278, 279, 287. 
Hug, Johann Leonhard, 188, 327. 
Hugenholtz, H. J. de Haan, 135. 
Humboldt, Alexander von, 186. 
Humphry, William G., 326. 
Hupfeld, Hermann, 123. 
Huther’s Commentaries, 132, 319, 364, 


402, 447, 449, 450, 457, 462. 
Hyperides, babington’s, 143. 


IBAS, 302. 

Idacius (Idatius) a 264, 268. 

Ignatius, 279, 321, 2, 324, 399, 396, 
444; Ignatian ΤΉΝ 127, Τ2ὃ, 
121; 132, 267, 279. 287, 321, 390, 396. 

Immer, Prof. A., 449. 

Indicative, the, in doxologies, 355, 409. 

Trenzeus, 243, 247, 254, 257, 258, 208, 
269, 277, 279, 281, 287, 296, 297, 313, 
323. 3245 349, 357, 390, 391, 433, 434; 


435: 

Irmisch’s Herod:an, 428. 

Isidorus (Isidore) of Pelusium, 247, 
279, 300, 387. 

Tsocrates, 432. 

“Ἱερουσαλήμ, abbreviated in MSS., 147 

_ 564: 

ἵνα, 123, 128, 130, 131. 

toa, 368. 

Ἰσραήλ, abbreviated in MSS., 148, 149. 


Jackson, JOHN, of Leicester, 398, 400. 


485 


Jackson, S. M., 408. 

Jackson, Wilham, 440, 444. 

Jacobitz and Seiler’s Greek Lexicon, 
137. 

Jacobson’s Patres Apostolici, 127, 325. 

Jahn, Johann, 464. 

Jansenists, ‘Tregelles on the, 182. 

Jatho, G. F., 390. 

Jerome, 263, 264, 277, 298, 302, 303, 
308; 313, 395) 426. τ 

Jesus: his prayer, 114; traditional 
sayings ascribed to, 236; to confess 
him as the Christ, 376. (See Christ, 
God, Messtah, θεός, κύριος.) 

Jews: Greek-speaking, 116; unbeliev- 
ing and Christian, 333; Messianic 
hopes of, 353, 3553; attitude towards 
doctrine of the Trinity, 374, 375; 
privileges, 413, 415-422; Gnostic 
view of their God, 433. 

John, Acts of, 410. 

John IL., pope, 308, 309. 

John of Damascus, 231, 262, 268, 277, 
388. 

John the Evangelist, 121-123, 132, 280, 
377; his Gospel: logos (¢.v.), 255; 
paraphrase, 261; Commentaries, 
273, 301; translation, 276; Origen, 
278; Chrysostom, 306; proem, 283, 
375, 376 

Jonas, Justus, 463. 

Jones, John, 393. 

Josephus, 115, 124, 125, 127, 130, 132, 
3545 454: 

Joshua : Book OLMlA7 ΤΑΘῚΣ 
124. 

Jowett, Benjamin, 319, 403, 404, 422, 


prayer of, 


447. 

Julian the Apostate, 243, 260, 266, 268, 

277, 346, 392. 
Julianus Pomerius, 308. 
Junilius, 265, 268, 275, 281. 
Junius, Patricius, see Young, Patrick. 
Justi, L. J. C., 399. 
Justin Martyr, 164, 230, 352, 375, 428. 
Kaunis, Κα. Ε΄. A., 382. 
Kaye, Bp. John, 372. 
Keble, John, 435. 


TSG, la Ie 1) Bak Asis Civ 


Kennedy, Benjamin Hall, 335, 362, 368, 
3775 385, 411-414, 422, 42 3, 428, 433, 


447. 
Kettner, F. E., 463. 
“* King of the Ages,” 354. 
Kirchoff’s Corpus inser. Attic., 290. 
Kitto’s Cyclopzedia, 273, 464, Journal 
of Sacred Literature, 179, 182. 
Klausen, H. N., see Clausen. 
Klee, Heinrich, 396. 
Klofutar, 396. 
Klopper, A. H. E.. 447. 


486 


Knapp, 6. C., 156, 190, 379, 469. 
Knittel, F. A., 458, 459. 

Knobel, August, 376. 

Koellner, E:uard, 360, 401. 

Koner, see Guhl and Koner. 
Koppe, Johann Benjamin, 396, 399. 
KT ebSi ie Oi L277. 

Krehl, A. L. G., 402, 405, 449. 
Kriiger, K. W., 344. 

Kuenen, see Greek New Testament. 
Kiihner, Rafael, 409. 

Kuinoel, C. T., 133. 

Kuster’s (Ludol»h) Mill, 468. 


La Cava MS., see Vulgate. 

Lachmann, C., 156, 164, 189-194, 212, 
213, 218, 233, 241, 272, 294, 297, 319, 
362, 366, 405, 422, 439, 469. ς 

La Croze’s Hist. of Christ. in India, 

Lactantius, 315, 323. 

Laemmer’s Eusebius, 390. 

Lagarde, P. A. de, 168, 297, 388. 

Lampe, Friedrich Adolf, 133. 

ange; J. B:, 115; 273, 204, 301; 396, 

- 439, 450, 462. 

Laodiceans, Epistle to the, 304, 330. 

Lardner, Nathaniel, 322. 

Larousse’s Dictionary, 186. 

Latin Fathers, 228, 231, 241, 244, 
246, 257, 262, 265, 267, 268, 276, 277, 
281, 238, 296, 302, 388, 394, 395- 
(See Apostolic Fathers, Greek.) 

Latin Versions, 165, 252, 277, 297, 357, 
395, 463, 479. (See Brble, New Tes- 
tament, Vulgate, Old Latin.) 

Law, Edmund, 398. 

Lechler, G. V., 294, 405. 

Le Clerc, J. (Clericus, Joannes), 132, 
134, 372, 396, 427, 449. 

Lectionariex, 212, 407, 408. 

Le Long, Isaac, 466. 

Le Long, J. (ed. Masch), 188, 465. 

Le Maout and Decaisne’s Botany, 138. 

Lenfant, Jacques, see Beausobre and 
Lenfant. 

Lengenfeld, 155. 

Leo Judae, 463. 

Leontius of Byzantium, 395. 

Lepsius, V. R., 173. 

Letronne, 147. 

Leusden and Schaaf’s Peshito, see 
Syriac Versions. 

Liddon’s Bampton Lectures, 117. 

Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon, 137. 

Lightfoot, Bp. J. B., 115, 213, 272, 276, 
284, 319, 324, 325, 330; 370, 410, 447, 


455: 
Lilienthal, 186, 396. 
Limborch, Philip van, 297, 366, 396. 
Linneus, Carl, 138, 139. 
Lipsius, R. A., 319, 322, 324, 403. 


CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Liturgies, ancient, 238, 354, 358, 359; 
382, 409. 

Locke, John, 399, 421. 

Loesner,, ὦ, ἘΠ ὙΞΣ 

Logos, 255, 254, 314,315, 364, 369, 370, 
375» 377+ 391; 429 431. (See Christ, 
Sohn, Word, λόγος.) 

Lommatzsch’s Origen, see Origen. 

Lord: use of the word, 205; church 

(g.v.) of, 302, 304, 312, 314; One, 378— 
380, 384; name, 426. (See Christ, 
God, κύριος.) 

Lord’s Prayer, 206, 207, 238. 

Lucianus of Antioch, 247, 280. 

Lucifer of Cagliari, 302. 

Liicke, G. C. Friedrich, 273, 364, 442, 
457; 402. 

Luke the Evangelist, 320; his Gospel, 
words, 132; Sinai ic MS., 150; pa- 
limpsest, 162; mutilaions, 170; 
842; verses, 179; h.mns, 220; o.nis- 
sions, 234; on « ei'y of Christ, 346. 

Lumper, Gottfried, 427. 

Luthardt, C. E., 450. 

Luther’s German bible, see Bide. 

Lykurgos, 173. 

Lyser, Polycarp, 460. 

λαλέω distinguished from λέγω, 123. 


λέγω, ig. κελεύω, 123; distinguished 
᾿ . “7 

from λαλέω, 123. 
Abyoc, 0, 375, 377, 412; as distin- 


guished from οἱ λόγοι, 325. (See 


Logos.) 


MACARIUS /AEGYPTIUS, 288. 
Maccabees, Books of the, 144, 168. 
Macknight, James, 397, 449. 

Mai, Angelo, 161, 171, 256, 261, 262, 
266, 277, 300, 304, 330, 331- 

Maier, Adalbert, 396. 

Malan, S. C., 276, 289. 

Malle, Dureau de la (¢.v.). 

Mangey, Thomas, 171, 369. (See Philo 
of Alexandria.) 

Manichaeans, 277, 287, 288, 393; 433, 
445. 

Manuscripts: 160, 177, 178} 182, (220) 
217, 218, 222, 202, 312; marks of 
antiquity in, 140 sqq., 160; chapter- 
divisions in, 141 sq., 143, 147, 148; 
dots in, 146, 148; initial letters in, 
146, 148; contractions in, 148 sq.3 
chirography of, 152, 153; punctua- 
tion in, 346, 408, 431 =q.; substitu- 
tions in, 205, 206, 226, 315; causes 
of error in, 204 sqq., 222 Sq., 229; 
concurring In erroneous and variant 
readings, 191, 204-217. 275; number 
of, 220, 250; ‘“‘ unconscious ” changes 
in,.226; not wilfully altered, 314 sq. ; 
omissions in, 205, 223, 239; date or, 
211; relative estimate of, 150, 296, 


INDEX OF NAMES, 


305; palimpsest (g.v.); on papyrus, 


ἘΠ. ΤΟ; en papyri, 143, 
147, 149, 152, , 211; ihe Burdett- 
Coutts, 295; ae ptian, 200; 2755 


281; Hebrew, 214; Latin, 316, 331; 

Freising Old Lat. fragm., 330; Ori- 
ental, 159, 330; of the Sepr., 162; 
of versions from the Sept. 357; 
Syriac (9.2%), 150, 310, 327, 320; 
cursive, 177, 180, 212, 219-221, 250, 
275, 288, 292, 300, 311, 312, 316, 346, 
ace 406-408, Agora ΠΕ 158, 173, 
177, 218-221, 228-231, 233, 236, 238, 
250, 268, 292, 295, 305, 312, 407, 432. 
“(See Codex, Copyists, Lectionaries, 
Paleography, Palimpsest, etc.) 

Marcion, 170, 322. 

Marcker, 400. 

Marginal Notes, see Glosses. 

Marius Mercator, 395. 

Mark’s Gospel: last twelve verses, 
140 ff., 150-154, 195; Gothic, 203; 
text of, 231, 240; on deity of Christ, 

46. 

ΚΕ ΤῈ Alterthiimer, 138. 

Marsh’s Michaelis, 186, 188, 327, 461. 

Martin I., pope, 308. 

Martini, Antonio, 324, 428. 

Masch, A. G., see Le Long, /. 

Massoretes, verses, etc., see Old Testa- 
ment. 

Massmann, H. F., 135. 
Version.) 

Massuet's Irenzeus (¢.v.), 435. 

Mastricht, Gerhard von, see Vox Mas- 
tricht. 

Matthei, ΟΣ F., 218, 222, 262, 766, 279, 
280, 287, 295, 298, 316, 389, 407, 427, 
468. 

Matthew’s Gospel: genealogy, 145; 
Tregelles, 180; original language, 
182; Buttmann, 101, 192, 195; MS. 
peculiarities, 231; ; participles 1 In, 3445 
on deity of Chii- t, 346. 

Matthies, C. S., 132, 439. 

Maurer, F. J. Υ. Ὁ. 5 UA 

Maximinus the Arian, 243, 
278. 


Max mus the Confessor, 


(See Gothic 


264, 268, 


270. 592) 53:10; 


395: 

McClellan, J. B., 197, 273, 276, 328. 

Meier, F. C., 439. 

Melanchthon, 463. 

Meletius, 322. 

“ Melissa,” see Axfonzus, 

Melito, 282, 322, 390, 390. 

Memphitic Version, 212, 221, 228, 230, 
231, 238, 252, 276, 288, 296, 298, 312, 
324, 330. (See Agyptian Versions.) 

Menander, 172. 

Mende!ss»hn, Felix, 156. 

Mende.ssohn the Publisher, 166. 


TOPICS, AND GREEK WORDS 


487 


Messiah, 332-350, 353, 355, 375; the 

Foye nut iderntifed witn Jehovah, 

376, 378, 380, 484-386, 393, 412-418, 
ee 434. (See Chrz.t, Jesus.) 

Mess er, (K. F.) Hermann, 398, 449. 

ee 388. 392. 

Meyer.) ΠΕ ἌΓΟΝ i.) L225) 133). 233;, 273, 
294, 519) 514, 359381 380.358 270, 
381, 332, 393, 399, 400, 402, 403, 405, 
409, 422, 437, 439, 445, 447,449, 457. 

Meyrick, Prebendary F., 439. 

Michaelis, C. B., 188. 

Michaelis, J. D., 186, 188, 295, 396, 449, 
457, 460. 

Middleton, T. F., 439, 451, 453: 

Mull, John, 213, 215, 218, 222, 238, 298, 
468, 476. 

Milligan, William, 272, 294. 

Milton, John, 297, 366. 

Miniscalchi-Erizzo, Count Francesco, 
163, 289. (See [Jerusalem] Syriac 
Versions.) 

Moldenhawer, J. H. D., 449. 

Moller, E.’W., 449. 

Ménckeberg, C. -, 401. 

Moniagu, bp., 259. 

Montfaucon, Bernard de, 172, 259) 261, 
2045 205,27 75.27 9, 287, 288, 298-300, 


306, 378, 334, 428. 
Maren Sacra Inedita, see Zisch- 
endorf. 


Moon, G. Washington, 451. 
Mordecai, 455. 

Morel, see Aronto Ducaeus. 

Morris, ΤΕΣ aS 

Morus, S. F. N., 335, 382: 

Mosheim, ἢ» a von, 428. 

Mossman, 1". W., 375: 

Moulton’s Winer, see Wzzer. 

Mu and 22 interchanged, 324 
Muilach’s Modern Greek Grammar, 


286. 

Miiller and Hoeppe’s edition of Mark 
in Gothic, 203. 

Muralt, Eduard von, 405. 

Muratorian Canon, 182. 

μακαριστ' ός, 357, 409. 

μετά and κατὰ confounded in MSS., 428. 

μήτηρ, contracted in MSS., 148, 149. 

μονογενὴς θεός, see θεός. 

μονοκώλως (μονόκωλα), 383, 301. 

μου, contracted in MSS., 149. 

NaTHAN, Raper JsAac, his Hebrew 
Concordance, 464. 

Neander, J. A. W., 376, 449; 457- 

Nesturians, 328, 329. 

Nestorius, 266, 301, 329, 395: 

Newcome, Abp. William, 1 34, 449. 

Newman, Cardinal J. H., 388. 

New Testame>t: words, I14, 121; 
common version, 116; MSs., 140, 


488 


141 (-ee Cod-x); editions of, 155 56.» 


ROO τον, Gs) (LOD, 170;}172.. 180; 
190; Latin, 160, 252, 277, 207, 302, 
325) 357, 395, 463, 466, 470; “ Intro- 


ductiuns” to, 174, 180, ioe 186, 188, 
202, 273, 275; Smith’s Dictionary, 
185; Westcott and Hort’s, 197-203; 
Greek text of, 200, 204-214;! New 
Version, 215-240 (see Ae-Zzszo72) ; 
German, 273, 274; Dutch, 274, 466; 
French, 274, 465; Khemish version, 
449; verses, 405 sq.; Italian, 466; 
Whittinghim’s, 466. (See Side, 
Gospels, Greek NV. T.) 

Nicza, 377, 381, 382, 385; its council, 
see Councils; Nicene creed, 267, 
5. 272, 351: 

Nicander, 302. 

Nicephorus Theotoski, 435. 

Nicetas Choniates, 263. 

NiedneryC) Wi... 17. 

Niemeyer, ἘΠ: A, 45 461, 469. 

Noesselt, J. A., 188, 370. 

Noetians, 378, τ 

Nolte, 259. 

Nonnus of Panopolis, 135, 261, 268, 
277, 279, 288 

Norton, Andrews, 118, 133, 208, 322, 
335, 451; his Statement of Reasons, 
242, 244, 247, 248, 2 2, 364, 370, 372. 

Novatian, 304, 323, 378, 394. 

Noyes, George R: -» 132, 319, 376, 404. 


CECOLAMPADIUS, J., 463. 

C&cumenius, Bishop cf Tricca, 300, 
307, 387, 394 445. 

Oehler, Franz, 306, 394. 

Oehier, G. F., 376. 

Oertel, 1. F. ΟΣ 296; 390. 

Old Latin Version, 158, 160, 212, 221, 
228-231, 236, 238, 252, 257, 263, 268, 
269, 276, 277, 279, 257, 288, 296, 207, 
299, 392-304, 308; 312, 330 357, 390 
434, 449. (See Latiz Vo: szons, Vul- 
gate, Bible, New Testam: nt, etc.) 

Old ates r earn MSS., 140, 141, 214, 
231, 238; stichometry in, 146, 151; 
Tiscl τ 157; fragments, 161; 
quotations, 200, 201, 230; expres- 
sions, 425. 

Old Slavic Version, 357. 

Olivetan, Pierre Robert, dos: 

Olshausen, Hermann, 132, 273, 360, 
361, 396, 398, 439. 

Oltramare, Hugues, 274, 319, 404, 411, 


414. 

Optative, the, in doxologies, 355, 357, 
400. 

“Opus Imperfectum” (appended to 
works of Chrysostom), 267. 

Oratio Azariae, 356. 

“Oration against Demosthenes ” 


(pa- 
pyrus fragm., ed. Harris), 152. 


CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Origen (Adamantius), 228, 230, 231, 
234, 233, 243, 246, 247, 254, 365, 268, 
277-279, 281, 282, 234, 286-288, 292, 
301, 3 29, 33% 337, 359, 390, 
395; 414, 427-431, 445. 

Orme’s Memoir, etc., 331. 

Orsiesius (Oresiesis), 307. 

“ Orthodoxa Confessio,” 307. 

Otto, J. C. T., 322, 390, 396. 

Oudin, Casimir, 263. 

Overbeck, F.C. 204: 

Ovid, 120. 

Oxford: its l:brarics, 158, 159, 299, 

300, 328; university, 173, 328; MSS., 

295, 209. Be. 

used with a nom. particip. in the 

Ν. Ὁ: 3445 ὁ ὃν, 383 Sq.) 302esqr 

397, 422-425: how affering from 

ὃς ἐστι, 400 

OTWC, 130, 131. 

ὃς ἐστι, how differing from ὁ ὧν, 345, 
400. 

οὐρανός, contracted in MSS., 

Ov, 6, 344, etc., see εἰμί. 


310, 326, 


ἘΠῚ 


149 Sq. 


PAGNINUS, SANCTES, 465. 
ΕΒ ims, 105 Oy B95 


Paleography, 148, 158, 172,292. (Sec 
Manuscripts, etc.) 
Palimpsests, 161, 162, 172, 173, 177s 


178, 182. (See Manuscripts.) 
Palm, F., see Rost and Palm. 
Panzer, Georg Wolfgang, 461. 
Paper, see Papyrus. 
Pape’s Lexicon, 137. 
Papyru., 137-139; papyrus MS., τότ. 
Paraclete, 259, 278, 380. 


Paris: libraries, 158, 217; Greek Tes- 
taments published at, 162, 210; 
MSS., 300. 


Parlatore (on the Papyrus plant), 139. 

Paschale, John Lewis (Giovan. Luigi), 
466. 

Paschasius the Deacon, 308, 300. 

Paschasius Radbertus, see Radbertus. 

Passow, Franz, see Rost and Palm’s 
Passow. 

Pastoral Epistles, Christology of, 447, 
448. 

Patripassian Controversy, 321, 324, 391. 

Patristic Citations, see Fathers: Greek, 
Latin. 

Paul the Apostle: words, 132; Tisch- 
endorf’s studies, 155; on Son of 
God, 255; names of Christ, 256; his 
use of language, 317, 318, 301-363; 
faith, 332, 3333 sufferings, 333; ee 
sition, 334; Christology of, 291, 
361-365. 374, 375, 377) 37% 380, 
447; MSS. of his Epistles, 160, 177, 
1783 211, 212, 217, 219 220. 296, 312, 
315, 316, 447, 445. 

Paulus} Hr). \G.,)209 491: 


INDEX OF NAMES, TOPICS, AND GREEK WORDS 


Pauly’s Real-Encyclopadie, 137. 

Pearson, John, 371, 426. 

Pellican (Kiirschner), 
463. [ 

Penn, Granville, 297, 366, 367. 

Persic Version, 225, 231. 

Petavius, Dionysius (or Denys Petau), 
253. 255, 310. 

Peter of Clugny, 186. 

Peter the Apostle: preaching and 
cpinions of, 374, 375, 377) 379: 

Petermann, J. H., 321. 

Pfleiderer, O:to, 450. 

Philippi, F. A. (on Romans), 393, 396, 
398, 409, 421. ὁ 

Philo (of Alexandria), 127, 158, 
284, 354, 369, 370, 372, 409, 410. 

Philocalia, the, 278. 

Philodemus, papyrus MS. of, 149, 211. 

FPhoebadius, 246, 264, 268, 277. 

Photius, 126, 262, 287, 387, 392, 393, 


Conrad, 366, 


171, 


433. 
ἜΣ sue mu confounded in MSS., 324. 
Pilate, Acts (¢.v.) of, 410. 
Plato, 114, 204, 361, 428, 432. 
Platter, Thomas, 459. 
Platt, Thomas Pell. his Ethiopic Ver- 
sion, 248, 252, 268, 276, 306, 310, 330. 
Pliny, 138, 139. 
Ply mouth Iirethren, 175. 
Po: ock, Edwerd, 426. 
Polycarp, 115. 125, 127, 129, 130, 324. 
Polyglott Bibles, see Antwerp, Com- 
plutensian, Walton’s, etc. 
Pomeranus, see Bugenhagen. 
Pomerius, Julianus, 308. 
Porson, Richard, 239. 
Porter, J. Scott, 179, 233, 294, 308. 
Postel, Guillaume, 327. 


Post-Nicene Writers, 444. (See Fath- 
ers, etc.) 

Praxapostoli, 220, 408. (See Manu- 
scripts.) 


Pressensé, Edmond de, 186. 
Prevost, of British Museum, 181. 
Priestley, Joseph, 375. 
Primasius, 304, 308, 309, 44 
Proclus, 261, 368, Bes ae =n 
Procopius Gazaeus, 287. 
Prosper Aquitanus, 308. 
Proudfit, John, 306. 

Proverbs, Book of, 255. 
Prudentius, 243, 246, 247, 280. 
Przipcovius (Przpkowsky), 


161, 162, 436; 


Samuel, 


397. 
Psalms, Book of, 151, 
Ziirich Psalter, 162. 
Psalms (Psalter) of Solomon, 356. 
Pseudo-Ambrose, - Athanasius, - Basil, 
and the rest, see Ambrose, Athana- 
sius, Basil, etc. 
Ptolemy, the Gnos-ic, 148, 228. 
πάπυρος͵ 137. 


RABANUS MAURUS, 


489 


mapa, after αἰτέω͵ 128, 120. 
TAPAKAAEW, 125, 1531, 132. 

πατήρ, contracted in MSS., 148, 140. 
πίστις, in Paul’s quotations, 426. 
πνεῦμα, contracted in MSS., 148, 149. 
ψεκτός, 409. 


QUINCUPLEX PSALTER, 464, 465. 
Quintilian, 120. 
Quotatiens from the N. T., 212. 


308, 394- 

Rabiger, J. F., 402. 

Racovian Catec ism, 397. 

Radbertus Paschasius, 265. 

Rambaut, 435. 

Rationalism, 182. 

“ Recensions,” 156. 

Redepenning, E. R., 301, 389, 427. 

Reiche, J.1G:, 401. 

Reifferscheid, 304. 

Reithmayr, F. X., 396. 

INEUSCH Ἐν ΕἸ. 350, 1.1: 

Reuss, Eduard W. E., 184, 186, 312, 
324, 398, 400, 450, 457, 464. 

Revelation, book of: Jast chapters, 
1755, bregelles, 175;, MSS. of; 210, 
Ὁ 72.1.2... 2.1. 220. 

Reve aton, the divine, progressive, 
376 54. 

Revision, the, 235, 272, 324; its mar- 
gin, 230; American Revisers, 213, 
214, 274, 286, 294, 331, 395s 366, 449; 
Injaivisi, seh Biaghheyey zie | (588 
Bible, New Testament.) 

Rickli, C., 460, 462, 463. 

Riddle, M. 8., 439. 

Riehm, Eduard CU. A., 376. 

Rieu, of Briti~-h Museum, 181. 

Rilliet, Albert, 274. 

Ritschl, Albrechr, 378, 398, 405. 

Rob-rts, Alexander, 272, 435- 

Kobinson, Edward, 124. 135, 409, 449. 

Roensch, Hermann, 321. 

Romans, Epistle to the: lectures, 319; 
texts, 332-350; participles, 344; 
date, 375; Origen, 389; catena, 392; 
addres, 420. (See “πάσα of Bibli- 
cal Passages.) 

Ropes; ΟΣ Tt a 725. 

Rosenmiill lex, Jr Ὁ 132, 188, 449. 

Rossler, C. G., 324, 428. 

Rost and Palm’s ’ Passow’ s Lexicon, 
137, 351: 

Rothe, Richard, 449, 457. 

Routh, Martin Joseph, 258, 
390, 392, 396. 

Rickert, L. Immanuel, 132, 319, 360, 
361, 398, 402, 405, 409. 

Rufinus : f Aquileia, 389, 427, 428. 

Rufi .us Syrus (or Palaestinensis), 261, 
268, 276, 277. 

Ruinart, Vhierry, 409. 


321, 388, 


490 


SABARJESUS, 301, 302, 328, 3209. 

Sabas, Bp., 428. 

Sabatier, Pierre, 222, 304, 308. 

Sabellius, 260, 277. 

Sahidic Version, 212, 221, 296. 
Leeyptian Versions.) 

Salmond, 5. Ὁ. F., 201. 

Sanday, W.; 396, 407, 432. 

Sandius (Sand), Christoph., 372. 

Sarravianus Codex (¢.v.), 162. 

Savile, Sir Henry, his edition of Chrys- 
ostom, 261, 298-300, 307. 

Schaaf’s Syriac Lexicon. 203. (See 
Syriac Versions.) 

Schaff, P.: on Greek Testament, 197; 
Introduction, 202; translation, 273. 

Scheffer, 403. 

Schenkel, D., 132, 439, 450. 

pehinitz, 5. Ος» 125: 457. 

Schleiermacher, F. E. D., 370. 

Schleusner, J. F., his N. T. Lexicon, 
135, 409. 

Schlichting, Jonas, 397, 398. 

Schmid, C. F., 398, 450, 457. 

Schmidt, J. E. L., 188. 

Schmidt, Wold. mar G., 404. 

Schoettgen, C., 135, 362, 376, 307. 

Scholten, J. H., 403. 

Scholz, J. M. A., τοῦ, 218, 303, 307- 
310, 316, 408; his edition of the 
Greek Testament, 179, 190, 191, 242, 
469. 

Schott, H. A., 186, 188, 398, 405, 449, 
469, 470. 

Schrader, Karl, 401. 

Schultz, Hermann, 342, 375-378, 382, 
386, 303, 396. 

Schulz, David, 156, 398. 

Schumann, 449. 

Schiitz, Adolph von, 289, 290. 

Scriptures, see Lzble, Gospels, New 
Testament, etc., etc. 

Serivener, F. ἘΠ 142, 186, 233, 251, 
273, 276, 294, 296, 305, 308, 316, 365, 
432, 469, 470; his “Collation,” 152, 
163, 164, 174, 213, 217, 218, 289-292, 
311; his “Introduction,” 180, 197, 
202, 275. 

Sedulius Scotus (or Junior), 303, 445. 

eon Johann Salomo, 391, 396, 401, 
463. 

soe Lucius Annaeus, 120. 

Septuagint, 115, 123, 124, 126-120, 132, 
133, 158-160, 162, 168, 228-231, 238, 
291, 317, 351, 357, 359 380, 410, 426, 
436-438 ; Holmes and Parsons’s edi- 
tion of, 168; errors in Tischendorf’s 
edition of, 168 ἢ. (See Brble, Trom- 
minus.) 

Sharp, Granville, his “rule,” 439. 

Shepherd of Hermas, see Hermas. 

Sibylline Oracles, 115, 125, 130, 323, 
450. 


CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Sifanus, 309. 

Silvestre’s Palcography (g.v.), 148. 

Simon, Richard, 188. 

Simonides, Constantine, 172, 173. 

Sinclair, W. M., 457. 

Sinker, Robert, 169. 

Sionita, Antonius, 327. 

Sirmond, Jacques, 261, 262, 280. 

Slavonic Version, 221, 309, 463. 

Smith and Ifall’s Latin Dictionary, 119, 

Smith, G. Vance, 396, 407, 432. 

Smith, John Pye, 375, 376, 398 

Smith, Payne, 276, 327. 

Smith’s Bible Dictionary, 182, 185, 376; 
Dictionary of Greek and Roman 
Antiquities, 137. 

Socinians: interpreters, 366; com- 
mentators, 378; sect, 387, 395, 405; 
glosses, 397. 

Socinus, Faustus, 378, 397. 

Solomon, see Psalter of, Wisdom of. 

Sophocles, E. A., 115, 123, 124, 289, 

23: 

Sucbcaes oldest MS. of, 211. 

“Speaker's Commentary,” 377, 411, 
427, 439, 457- 

Speculum, The, 303, 304, 310, 330, 331- 

Spencer, Herbert, 2o1. 

Steiger, Wilhelm, 447. 

Stengel, 396. 

Stephens, Henry, 463-467; his The- 
saurus, 110, 134. 

Stephens, Robert, the elder, 190, 210, 
217, 234, 462-406, 468-470. 

Stephens, Robert, the y unger, 462, 
463, 468. 

Stephen the Martyr, 136; sermon, 374. 

Stichometry, 145, 146, 407. 

Stier (R.) and Theile’s (g.v.) Poly- 
glott, 190. 

Stieren, A., 349, 435- 

Stobaeus, 300. 

Stolz, J. J., 399. 

Strato, 115, 130. 

Stuart, Moses, 314, 337, 351, 304, 380, 
385, 386, 398, 401, 407, 440. 

Suidis, 115, 124-126, 130. 

Swedish Translation, 159, 170. 

Swiss German Version, 462. 

Symmachus, 124. 

Synagogue Liturgy, 382. 

Synod of Ancyra, 243, 247, 254, 255, 
268; of Antioch, 258, 269, 323; of 
Diamper, 329. (See Couzzcz/s.) 

Synoptic Gospels (¢.v.), 374, 376. 

Syriac Versions, 132, 163, 176, 212, 
281, 289, 305, 310, 321, 323, 324, 3203 
editiuns of, 305, 309, 327, 329, 3973 
Leusden and Schaaf’s Peshi‘o. 203; 
‘Harclean, 212, 221, 229, 231, 252, 
piece es 270 ee ΠΟ ὙΣ 
312, 313, 328, 329, 449; Jerusalem, 
163, 312, 331, 230, 252, 263, 269, 276, 


INDEX OF NAMES, YOPICS, AND GREEK WORDS 


289; Peshito (Peshitto), 203, 212, 
221, 228, 230, 231, 252, 263, 260, 276, 
281, 289, 305, 309, 326-330, 449, 4035 
Philoxenian, 212,-221, 252, 276, 296, 
304, 305, 313, 328. (Sec Curetonian, 
etc 


Syrian Fathers, 281, 329. (See Fathers.) 
σταυρώθῃ, contracted in Cod. Sin., 148, 


149. 
στήκω, 286 sq. 


TATIAN, 322. ᾿ 

Taylor, John, of Norwich, 398. 

Tertullian, 228, 238, 246, 263, 268, 269, 
277, 282, 297, 315, 321, 322, 388, 394, 


445. 

ee ee of the Twelve Patriarchs, 
127, 129, 169, 354. 

Textus Receptus, see 
Testament. 

Thapsensis, see Vigilius. 

Thebaic Version, 212, 221, 230, 231, 
288, 296, 312. (See Leyptian Ver- 
sions.) 

Theile, K. G. W., 190, 469. (See 
Stier and Theile.) 

Thema Genethliacum, 148. 

Theodore of Heraclea, 135. 

Theodore of Mopsue-tia, 135, 261, 268, 
269, 277, 3295 370, 303, 305, 400. 

The: doret, 132, 261, 268, 269, 277, 280, 
288, 301, 310, 329, 387, 395, 421, 445. 

Theodorus Studita, 262, 268, 277, 300, 

87. 

Thecdotion, 359. 

Theodotus of Ancyra, 395. 

Theodotus (the Valentinian), 253, 268, 
269, 276, 281. 

Theodulus, 394. 

Theophilus of Alexandria, 395. 

Theophylact, 132, 135, 262, 268, 277, 
287, 299, 300, 307, 309, 387, 421, 445. 

Thilo, Johann Karl, 168. 

Tholuck, F. A. G., 273, 393, 396, 409, 
421, 450. 

Thomas of Harkel, 296, 304. 
Syriac Versions.) 

Thomasius, Gottfried, 427. 

Thompson, Joseph P., 396. 

Tigurina Version, see Zzirich Bible. 

Tischendorf, L. F.C. von: career, 1 55-- 
174; Monumenta Sacra Inedita, 160, 


Greek New 


(See 


199; labors, 213, 219, 220, 222, 223; 


156, 190; Prolegomena, 157, 166; 
minor editions, 166-168; critical ap- 


491 


paratus, 181; edition of 1854, 189; 
of 1849, 190, 194; seventh edition, 
242, 248, 266; Anecdota, etc., 159, 
179, 219; Notitia, etc., 179, 219, 240, 
250; Synop-is, 273; edition of 18609, 
274; “Church ot God,” 294-2096, 
298, 304-312, 314, 316, 319, 329-331 ; 
Romans ix $11 4525-357, 301,302, 
392, 405-408; Titus ii. 13, 430, 447; 
John v. 7, 462; verse-divisions, 464— 
467; in edi.ions, 469. (See Brble, 
Greek New Testament, Septuagint.) 

Tittmann, J. A. H., 469. 

Titus of Bostra, 243, 247, 260, 268, 269, 
277, 279, 280. 

Todd, John A., 458. 

Tregelies, Samuel Prideaux: Sinaitic 
Co ex, 152; errors attributed to, 
154; Zacynthius Codex, 163; career, 
175-153; discoveries, 194; laburs, 
174, 213, 219, 220, 222, 233, 469; his 
Greek New ‘Testament, 197, 100, 
469; completion of, 181; on “only- 
be.otten God,” 241-272, 274-270, 
284; on “Church of God,” 294, 298-- 
300, 304, 307, 316, 317, 329, 330; on 
Romans 1x. 5, 362, 366, 375; on 
Titus 1i. 13, 439. 

Tremellius, Emmanuel, 327. 

Trench, R. C., 113-136. 

Trinity: doctrine, 209, 248, 254, 264, 
277, 324, 374 $4.5 413, 460; mystery, 
376; glory, 392; trinitarian views, 
374» 375» 377 


; γ. 
Tristram’s (H. Β.) Natural History of 


the Bible, 138, 139. 

Trommiu.’s Concordance to the Septu- 
agint, 127, 351. 

Tiibingen Criucs, 164. 

Turrianus (Turrien), Francisco, 297. 

Twelve Patriarchs, see Zestaments, etc. 

Tyndale, William, 382, 449. 

τὸ or τὰ κατὰ, etc., in restrictive phrases, 
340, 432 Sq.3 τ ΟΝ ov, 7. δὲ ὃ, τ. ἐξ 
ov, T. ὑφ᾽ οὐ, 369. 

θεός: μονογενής, 241-285; in the pro- 
logue of John’s Gospel, 375; θεός 
and ὁ θεός in Philo, 369 sq.; in the 
N. T., 384; in later writers, 393; use 
of in tre Fathers, 371 sq., 386; by 
the Gnostics, 390; Paul’s use of, 
348, 363 ξ4., 369, 377 854.» 424. 427, 
447; ὁ μέγας θεός, 443 Sq., 456 Sq. ; 
θεὸς τῶν θεῶν͵ 429; distinguished 
from κύριος, 425-427. 


UBALDI, UBALDO, 408. 

Ueltgen, 358. 

Uhlmann’s Coptic Grammar, 324. 

Unigenitus Deus, 243, 246, 248, 256- 
258, 263-265, 267, 277-279, 282. 
(See Deus, God, etc.) 


492 


Unitarian Controversy, 426, 432 

Uranios Pulimpsest (g.v.), 173. 

Usteri, Leonhard, 398, 456. 

VALENTINUS and the Valentinians, 

253, 270. 

Valesius (Henri de Valois), 390, 455. 

Van der Palm, 297» 360. 

Van Hengel, Ἄς, 2 7Α ono; 
351, 399, 400, 422, 433, 433, 450. 

Van Herwerden, 135. 

Van Maestricht, sce Vow Mustricht. 

Vatable (Guastebl d), Frangois, 465. 

Vatican MS., see Cod. Vaticanus. 

Vaug an, C. J., 396. 

Verbals in -70¢, 4009. 

Vercellone, C., 151, 476. 

Verse-ivisions in the N. T., 470-477. 

Ver-ions of the Bible, see £thiopzc, 
Arabic, Armenian, etc. 

Victorinus Afer, 263, 264, 268, 277, 

279; 395: 

Vigilius Thapsensis, 243, 247, 265, 268, 
278, 279; 331. 

Vinke, H. ES 135, 292. 

Virgin Mary, 282. 

Viss ring, 403. 

Volbeding, Johann Ernst, 155. 

V ikmar, G, 169, 319, 404. 

Von Falkenstein, 157. 

Von Mastricht, Gerhard, 184-188, 468. 

Voss, Isaac, 131, 134. 

Vulgate, the, 119, 157, 158, 160, 165, 
Wy hy Bile, Binge Ait 215... 221, 

230, PORT egos. 252; 2575 1203, 

268, 269, 276, 279, 288, 303-305, 

308, 313, 321, 329, 330 44% 464, 465, 

469, 476. (See Gun Versions, Old 

Latin, New Testament, etc.) 


349, 


a ΘΟ 2, 162, 3h 27. 251. 
409. 

Wakefield, Gilbert, 133, 398. 

Walch, J. Gs 188, 458 463. 

Walton’s Po'yglot, 32 

Ward, ἣν. H.., 200. 

Waterland, Daniel, 426. 

Wattenbach, W., 138. 

Weber, Ferd., 376. 

Webster, William (Webster and Wil- 
kinson), 115, 123, 124, 126, 451. 

Weiss, B., 134, 233, 368, 378, 425, 426. 

Weizsacker, Carl, 134, 274, 294, 310, 
404, 450. 

Wesseling, Peter, 456. 


CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Westcott and Hort, 154, 174, 179, 185, 
197-203, 213, 214, 233, 270, 294, 295, 
319, 353, 3541 365, 375, 383, 380, 380, 
390, 395, 396, 05s 407, 430. 447, 450, 
469, 470. (See Greek Mew Testa- 
ment ) 

Wetstcin, J. j., 188, 213, 218, 2 
242, 243... 54; 268, 266, ΛΘ. 75 
298, 301--304, 308, 310, 314, 316,.322, 

323, 325, 352, 370, 334, 390, 400, 4-1, 
449, 457, 408. 

Whiston, William, 372, 400. 

Whitby, Daniel, 324, 349, 353, 391, 

Whitti.gham, William, 466. 

Wichelhaus, Johannes, 328, 329. 

Widmanstadt, Johann Albrecnt, 327. 

Wieseler, K., 319, 325, 447- 

Wilke, C. oe 405, 457. 

Wilkins, David, 276. 

eae (Sir John Gardner) Egypt, 
138. 

Wilkinson, see Webster and Wilkinson. 

Winer, Georg Bencdict, 157, 188, 290, 
319, 334, 345, 349, 357, 359, 360, 354, 
405, 410, 423, 437, 439, 449, 447, 450, 
452 » 454. 457. 

Winstanie_, Calvin, 444, 451. 

Winzer, J. F., 4or. 

Wisdom of Solomon, 255. 

Word, 306, 325. 376. (See Logos.) 

Wordsworth, Chr., 114, 122, 273, 204, 
318, 335, 383, 444, 469. 

Wright, William, 279, 326, 327, 330, 
464. 


XENOPHON, 350. 


YAHWEH, κύριος, 380. 

Young, Edward J., 310. 

“ Young Mystic, The,” 156. 

Young, Patrick (Junius, Patricius), 324. 
Young’s Analytical Concordance, 358. 


ZACHARIAS CHRYSOPOLITANUS, 263. 

Zacynthius, see Cod. Z. 

Zafiri (Zephyrus Franciscus), 435. 

Zeller, Eduard, 402. 

Ziegler, L., 330, 331- 

Zigabenus (or Zygadenus), see Zuthy- 
Mlus. 

Zohar, the book, 376. 

Ziirich: library, 158, 167; Psalter, 162, 
168; catechism, 462; Bible, 463. 


τ: 


INDEX OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES. 


N.B.— For references of a general character, see the names of the Biblical 
writers and books in the preceding index. 


OLD TESTAMENT. 


Norte.— The abbreviation S. stands for Septuagint; and this version is also sometimes indi- 
cated by added references in Parentheses. 


GENESIS: 
i. 26, 280 
ili. 14, . ἘΠ 
iv. II, . 357 
ἘΠῚ: 2. Then ALO 
xiv. 19, 356, 358, 410 
xiv. 20, 356, 358, 359, 
410 
XV. 24, . 220022 
xxiv. 27, 359 
XXiv. 31, 410 
XXV. 30, 168 
XXV1. 20, 357, 410 
ΕΝ Ml tel LOO 
RAVIL: 20, “3 350 
SVAN 44... 225 
Xxxi. 48, 168 
xliii. 17, 168 
Πα τις 351 
Xlive TQ): 5... 114 
xlvi. 28-1. 26, 147 
EXxobus: 
Tis 14; 263, 383 
ii. 14 (S.), 383 
Vil. 1; 370 
Vill. 42, : 287 
DN ME : 149 
xv. 18, . : 354 
Xviil. ΤΟ, : 359 
PKL) ie 22 
ΧΧΙΧ Τῇ, : 168 
XTX 25, 168 
LEVITICUS: 
xi. 13-10, . 146 
xiv. I0,. 224 
xvii. 14, 224 
NUMBERS: 
XXvil. 18, . 168 
DEUTERONOMY : 
ΜΠ ας 363, 410 
Vill. 21, . 456 
4 ΤΣ 126, 131 


ΣῈ ΤΣ 450 
xl. 10, - 168 
xiv. 12-18, 145, 146 
Xxill. I, τη 
XXill. 2, 317 
Xxill. 3, 317 
Xxlii. 8, . 317 
Xxvili. 6, 410 
SSSI SOK c 168 
XXxii. 49, 168 
XXX 4 410 
JosHua: 
Woop * oat 
Xe 20; 6 
X. I, 3, + 149 
bie We We 149 
ΧΙ We}, - 149 
xii, 10-22, . 145 
XV. 5, 149 
Xvii. IO, 168 
JUDGEs: 
EVIL 2). - 410 
RUTH: 
ii. 19, Jo sche ils: 
ii. 20, 363, 410 
iv. 14, - =) > BR, 
1 SAMUEL: 
ΧΟ ἤν ς 123 
Sahu ye : 128 
ὙΠ 18—xiv.9, . 167 
ΧΥΣ 12H 363, 410 
ΧΙΣ ἐπ Vg a. Leal 
RIK WT men eral τ 
XXV. 33, 356, 358, 410, 
437, 438 
XXV. 32, 356, 358, 359, 
410 
ΣΕ 9393 359 
POOR Ne 123 
2 SAMUEL: 
viil. 10, 123 
Xviii. 28, 350 


XXiil. I-7, . 
KINGS: 


_ 


xix. II—xxil. . 


2 KINGS: 
i—XXV. . 

1 CHRONICLES: 
1, 51-54, 
XV111. 10, 
xxviii. 8, 
ἘΧΙΝ ἘΠ’ 

2 CHRONICLES: 
li. 4(S.), . 
ΤΣ eet; 
Vi. 4, 

ix. 8, 

EZRA: 

Alle, Dyke 
Villewn 2a) 
NEHEMIAH: 

i 5, 
1.—xili. 
vii. 6, 
xe 2) 

ἘΣ 0 fc 

ESTHER: 

vil. 7, 

Vill. . 
708: 

Ne LS 

sabe Udy 6 

SER IKen oars 

XXXVIll. II, 


207, 


147; 


494 


XXxXviii. 26, 
PSALMS: 

πριν. ἐν ve 

ΕΙΣ, Ὁ, ἃ ἄς LOS 


xxvul. (S.) 6, : 359 
XXViii. . ne 277 
Xxx. 32 (S. ), 4 tie ese) 
Xxxiil. 6, 400 


AU Gali) i ἡ,» τ 958 
xlix. 19-Ixx. 11, 167 
KV 26 151». ἢ 350 
Ixvii. (1Χν 111.) 20, 


Ixviii. 20 (Ixvii. 19, 
S.), 14,» 436, 437 
Ixxi. (Ixxii.)i18, 7:0 
ἴσον πη 
Ixxi. (Ixxii.) 19, . 356 
[Reo το yh IS ch 550 


Ibo eh Ne 450 
1xxxvi. 10, - 450 
Ixxxviii. (1xxxix.) 

ΠΕ ΠΝ 
ΟΝ ΟΝ wee oan ow files) 
(Ob oe ye VR teal 16) 
Cixel 68 
CXs Piao ee ΚΘ 70 
Cx, i) τοδ; 220 

ἘΞΡΕΑΒ 


ΤΠ As ἡ πὶ MATOS 


Iv. 2, 290 
Tier Wr 290 
TVOO phe 409 
WIes24s Re heres ets AOS 
ARC OT αν ast Re sea LOS 
VRttZOye Ὑπὸ 5 LOS 
ToBIT: 
ἀπε χα ἡ. 409 
ΜΠ: (5 6 409 
Vili. 15-17, EE EACO 
nals WGP - 356, 409 
xi. 16, . 356, 409, 410 
Dias 359; 400 
xill. 6, ig 3:7 
Xlii. 10, 354 
Xe 12) 410 
xiii. 18, 410 
JUDITH: 
MAN. ἃ, ee 409 
xili.-18, . 350, 410 
SOTO, a. SS 351 


ESTHER (Sannlemeaths 
vii. 6, - 455 


CRITICAL ESSAYS 


Cxii. (cxili.), 2, 
aii wey A 108 
cxvii. (exviii. ) 26, 363 
Cxviil. (Cxix.) 12 
Cxxi6;. 115, 123 
cxxii. 6, II5, 12 
cxxiii. 6 (S.), 
CXXXIV.;20 (S-); 2. 359 


CXXKVIIL, 35; - - 205 
code πο ΠΣ ΠΟ 
exliii. 1 (S.), - B5o) Ὁ 
exliv. 13, 354 
cxlv. 13, 354 
. PROVERBS: 

viii. 22, . esd! 
ΣΧ νη τιν eee 


SOSH ἡ τὴ 
KV ZOOM) ὦ δ ΘΗΝ 


ἌΣΙΣ LS (Ss) Ὁ 
ISAIAH: 
(ib its 259, 279 
Oe Geils wis ae 7,0 
oa ea te ae eye) 
XXXV. 9, : 302 
Seen ΤῸ. τς ΠΣ Boe 
IESE, αο deol 28} 
JEREMIAH: 

ἜΧΗΙ δ᾽ 426 
APOCRYPHA. 
WISDOM OF SOLOMON: 
xiil. 1 ff., 383 
XIV. af (RSS) 357 
xiv. 8 (S.), 357 

ECCLESIASTICUS (.527- 
ach) 
xXVle 12,-: 223 
ΣῊ HSH 223 
SQM Ry koe o. 
OI AL ee ict foi Uae} 

ΕΣ ΠΥ Δ. os αὶ τ ΧΩ 
XXXill. 19, . 354 
XA V1 22, τ eC A 
HOOP cp hy ae, WY 
XXxix. 6, 450 


XL. 53) τ en ee GO 
PSALMS OF SOLOMON: 
il, 33 ΠΡ 
VATE τ SO 
vill. 42, . 356 
1 MACCABEES: 
iv. 20, ns 200 
7. §5-X. 18, 7° Ὁ 
x. ee. τ Ὁ S 5 
2 MACCABEES: 
ris 21, 


455 


xxiii. 6, . 376, 426 
SRO 15, 230 
xxxii. 18, 450 
MKT LO; - 450 
KARI TS) ὅν ᾿ς ΞΡ 
XXxill. 16, . 370, 426 


LAMENTATIONS: 


τὺ RL 
EZEKIEL: 


χύ. 25. [eh τι ΤΕ 

XXIV. 7, » ΟΖ ΖΗ 

xliv. . 264, 278 
DANIEL: 

11, 20, ον «emma 

Me AS» 456 

ill. 28, 359 


ibe, Ak MeN oe 450 
HosEa: 


15, “νον γὼ 426 
MICAH: 
Tis; εἶ ΚΠ 
WHA Nic ok bn Ml oe 
HABAKKUK: 
Pence aii τι EES 
1175.16). ΕΝ 
ZECHARIAH: 
ii. 10, 426 
SUT OS ge a eat 426 
iii. 24, 455 
iii. 30, 455 
iil. 34, 455 
Vv. 20, =) 450 
vii. 10, 126, 128 
vii. 24, - 409 
ΣῚΣ ὃ, 455 
ΧΙ, Τὸ, 455 
sab Th 455 
ἘΠ USS. « 450 
ἘΠῚ 25, - 455 
Sa ΤῸ 455 
ἜΝ PA Ὁ 455 
xs 22H Ὁ ᾿ 455 
Χν. 27, - 455 
τιν 27. - 455 
3 MACCABEES : 
1.9, - 455 
1: 10, 450 
rls TASS 450 
v.8,. . 455 
Hah Ὁ 456 
We Spi << - 455 
Wey Slee 455 
Viel Os n= . 455 
ΜΠ}: 2, τὸ - 456 
Vile os “840 


INDEX OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES 495 


NEW TESTAMENT. 


MATTHEW : ΜΠ ΟΝ τ. 6 LTA ΣΙ 5, TOS 200 
ἡ. Ὁ 1ΤΌ2 ὙΠ τ ν ΠΣ 128 ΣΙ 3, . 108, 206, 232 
(Chega 10 | τὸ3;.233 Vit TOD. - 193 KVI.8, - - « = 193 
UMUC Hees te) LOB Ns 22, co) cl Ge anno Siow Gli ES Mae 223 
lle - 148, LOS, 300 Wills So πὸ. ᾿ς ΤΟΣ ΣΝ]: Tah 223 
πον. πο τὸς ὙΠ. τ - 102 ἜΤΙ Τ  ,.253 
1.20, . . 148, 267 Vill, 3, 2 - - - 234 XV1.16,. . 234, 376 
TACs Viento dee eml 2OR ΜΠ πὶ τὴ 0 5,294 ΣΙ ΣΤ ἀν 578 
ΡΟ ea on 58» ὙΠ όι...... 21. ΣΥΝ 223 
etre ey εν og. ele) Vili Eee fo ΧΟ 2." 441 
Hien tor Bo a Alf) ὙΠ - | 102,292 Xvi. 28, . 193 
Πρ πο τοῖς vill. 31, 103 xvil. 4, 193 
il. 9, a fo 8g AGE TReSs 192 ΣΎ. 5, 260 
il Ts Be 7 105 ix. 8, 193 XV1l. 10, - 234 
11. D3 ys) = ss 193 1π 12. 206, 233 Xvi. 11, 234 
its a : ΤΩ ἵχ. πῆ; 233 XVI 21, 206, 232 
11. 18, ὙΠ 1X. 22, 233 ΧΥ]]. 24, 243 
11. 22, τ ΟΝ 103 Xe 235 470 ΧΙ. 24—xx. 17, 142, 
Ll. ΤΊ; 5 ac ed, ΤῊΝ ΤΕ eB 470 143 
TUG Ὁ Is ον LOZ iBeo ash og olen LOL SAU LS Sh co teh MN 
iii. 16, 148, 192, 193 Le OMe eros | ree ἢ: ὙΠ ον ΤΟ 
ΠῚ στα πὸ ἢ: 200 ἐσθ Bis. ole οὐ ape ΨΥ! συ Aine oh on Lo τὸ» 
AVstlepaeh sale ἐν LAS Kee ib svbeeh ta AZO ΧΟ II, 193, 206, 232 
IVA 2), 8. Se oe) 288 Xoo ey Eanes, AO KVL τ πῆρ 
NS,» CH dCi tha Cane ΓΖ SFU, | gp τὴν 3 Ὁ 239 XVIll. 10, ἃ 21, 134 
lv. ear AS a ch ..2.}3 x. ANS ἈΉΡ pony MO XVill. 20m Se ek. 34 
Ve G5) τ Ὁ: 212 MISES, τ 2 hep << MO xix. I, igh Vena 
LV PLOT Shean gS ἈΠῸ Τῶν δ. ve ie «233 xix 16, 156, 2675232. 
Iv. II, . . 192, 193 Ble TO; Psy Ὁ. τοῦ 275 
Iv. 12, 2. . «+ « 234 X1.1Q, + + + + 207 xix. 17, 232, 267, 275 
AN et TS soecesta sys tat 234 ls 23y ve ον: ΤΩΣ xix. 18 ff., 143) 144 
WEEE Is fo) MGR 29}. xi. 27, - . 142, 378 HiKE20, 0/4 Pairs 33 ἢ 
Ve I-12, . 143-145 xii, 10,2 +... 235 xix.29,. . . . 233 
Bees er 17 sad 233 Be 3 234, 292 
Vv. 5, 470 Xii. 30, 343 
x ZB τ 2 XX. 4, 234, 476 

9, 267 rons 21; 193 ki 
di XX. 5, 476 

Υ. 21, . 234 ΧΙ. 44, . 102 ἜΣ Ὁ 234, 202 
Wits) vis οἰ Rs ΧΙ]. 46, 5 Sate ce ey 2: 4 
Ree ian 9 ποῦν ὙΠ}; 103) 202m pie 
ν. 30, peo | alley) X11. 2. - . 292 i ᾿ aye 
Mesa t ali hy «. “EG. xiii. 6, 192, 193 oe ee 
Werte a Wht woe ee Killen ee ὦ 2.25 XX, 22, . . 231, 232 
We BIG) ag at 5397 XA On πιο. 3,588 XX 23, - 231; 232 
WG HS ie Bios 128 SAUL el lice | OY xx. 28,. . . . 236 
Werle gall ig, ods Be ate? sats Gy, May Ws τοῦ ΧΧΙ. TI, - + +» + 470 
v.44, - 206, 232, 275 RAM OM Hs renew LOD ΧΧΙ. 2, . + + + 470 
Vi. I, - 207, 235, 275 an VIB TN Ga oo Ba: ΧΙ. 3, « = 192,193 
1 2) ἘΠ sal 225 ἈΠ ὃ; τ Πρ ἸῸ5 XX1.Q, » + + + 303 
Vi. 4, Bali 227 ΧΠ 525 eee LOZ 105 XX1.12,. . . . 452 
ΜΙ ΘΙ 6 ss 227, 28 xiv. 6, .) 192 soak Th ER Gg 8 τὸ 
vi. 8, 128, 27.5) ΤΙ SVs Sal his ΩΡ Xxl. 22, . . .- 121 
vi. ΟΣ ie ὦ ΠΡ ΣΙΝ ΤΟ tay Lo. Al. HGR XXi. τ ree Naa ὙΠ 
Ml TOM ss en 52} Bl Vai27 sid ls ee ΤΩΡ xxl. 26, τὸ . . 471 
vi. 13, 206, 234, 275, = CMM Cuil τ cote xxi. 44, - . - 206 
355) 410 ἜΣ ΟΣ i) sii wenn tome 70 MAMTA, | 200234 

DG thts, oe RVs 7a Leone ROS MI AL, “t/a 
Medea roils bene VA Shae 1258 DEX GAD) Ys) Capoeira 70 
ὙΠ Ἐν: 2 MeL LO Ne τ} 130 Xxil. 43-45, . . 426 


VION eu ἐν τ ον ς ἢ THA ΣνΘ τ -ἸῊΞ RAG reo 


496 CRITICAL ESSAYS 


RAUL Ape Nek 16 KML 7s ahaa Me eRe VeGile ec 118, 23a 
Satoh Wah Gye, wo Ι XMLO Pew vehi s eee Voges) <4, 200 2.2 
XXill. 14, 192, 193, 206, X20, atin δ᾽, eh OR Vs Boys. (+ - RoR 

233, 471 KASH πῆ, LAS neo Vie Brs ὦ ον πὰ Bag 
KATO eae? LOS ποτ τ ΤΡ 9 ΖΗ, Wl Ae ἐκ Ὁ 
MXUM2T Gl sos) 234 XS y meee πο. eae VISTO, (HR τ ὍΝ 
RMU OMe. 2 234 KAS δα ἄρ πο ὦ wick RoBi yin Care ὙΠ ἢ 
ΤΉ ΤΣ τὴ. 202 X. 3O, πὸ Ὁ + 2 vi. TOst, euaket 2h 1 eal 
RIV 20. Ns ον, 2534 205 Gh ig toto τ oF WZ). iy Pecan 
πεν ὙΠ, νὴ τ 207 ΣΙ eh τ ὁ Ὁ 902 γῆ: 27,...«. «Ὁ 290; 222 
πεν δὴ, τὴ. Γ108;.22 ΟΣ, 2 τὰν Ge Δ Βὴϊ Vi. 28, . ‘3 2ΟΘ 95. 
Εν: στ τ - 25 ΧΙ. 26, . . 206, 233 Vis 30, - » 129 
ΟΣ Ο, ἡ pen ey cc) LON Xl. 29, - » . « 232 Vis 45)... + 3 see 
SSE BH Viol cup) LOR XU ΤΙ τς 1225, 220 Vil. 3) -.. ὙΠΟ ΤῸ 


ΣΥΝ Soy a) alin 10,5 Xe ΤῊ; 220; 202; 70 να τς ΕΝ 
ΠΣ ΡΣ ii ἘΠ avery sy 70 Vibhes75, (= 3) Seater τ 
ravi HO} πὴ τῶ Xl Sb—O7en) τ @ ἍΔ20 Vil. 18; 2) τ ΠΥ ΠῚ 


Foal, ΟΡ ΠΡ Ae ΣΟ aes eee Vil. τὸ... ie. Sete eta 
2 Sail Ὁ; ππρ Lc 22 xiii. I—xvi. 8, 143, 144 vil.36,;.... Limes 
SERV 70, ic tek LOS ΧΙ. I—xvi. 20, . 142 ὙΠ; Ὁ ς τ 250 
RKVINZ Gy Ἐν Ὁ τ 222 ΧΗ δ κω Ὁ ὩΣ ἢ γον, ye) mR oe 
rewaly Sep o | Holey 255 MAO ek τ ΜΙ ὙΠ. 2050 0 cline 585 
RVI 7s) 102; 202 ODT se hte) eu estate Vill. 37,, 116, 130, 131 
Seals ClO Geely 511 SN WO ae gg ule} ΠῚ Ὁ... sao eae 
Sally Soe Cg tail Σιν. ΟἿ. - 262, 260 Vill 28,., ὅν ΕΝ 
SQW OKs, - 237: ΠῚ πα 2. 20; 290 ὁπ 51. 
rogue Σ | Aa aby XV 5, de Ποῖ 1X. 20, οὐ τ ~ eRe 
ΣᾺ νάπας ΤῸ}. Gm 00 ΧυΙ om oe LCO ΤΟΙ 1X. 20. ς᾽ bs ΜῈ ge 
MARK: xvi. 8-20, . δ ΠῚ ix. 42, 476 
lo AH τ ΡΟΣ XVi. 9-20, 206 ix. 43, 476 
1. 755, 2 Θ,252 ΧΥ. 10, 154 ix. 44, 476 
iii. 2, 235 xvi. 27, ee a) Ix: S4j1)< lela. geen 
111. δ; 5 2S ΧΙ Gh ΠῚ ne ΤΩΙ 1X. 55,1, 20, ΖΘ, ΞΠἢ 
Hie πὰ πο ΤΠ ΌΚΕΣ 1X1 τό, Ὁ .200. eR 
{ΠΕ ΤῸ ἐν de ol eye πε τ μα ΝΣ 2G, Bits ae iy 
111. 20, . . τς 471 i. 28, 5 Pil, 905 Ke 22: 471 
HN Qy τ οὐ Ὁ 233 i. 42, . 234, 363 ΧΙ ΩΣ 22 
ΣῊ Ζ2η75,,298;) a LL i. 46-55, . 201, 220 X35 + + 2 - Ὁ}: 
Iv. 23, 5 Ge aaa ib Ose (Ge, 53s ap ROBE ΧΙ. 2, ο΄. 233, 275 
Weu7ie 1 ἘΠ 252 τ ἘΠ ayia Ὁ 3 ΧΙ τορος 29 ΦῊΞ 
Vv. 40, ἜΝ 295 i. 68, 359, 362 ΣῚΡ ΤΠ: ΗΠ ΠῚ 
vi. II, 206, 233 i. 68-70, 201, 220 Kes 128 
Wist225 un. 5 Bats tees 2) yo ΧΙ 2, τὸς reo poop SiS: 
aly be " 471 VeTASE ΔΕ ἘΠ} χὶ 27, «118, 126; 158 
ὙΠ Clone 471 1. 80, gs OaH ΧΙ, pee te ΚΕΝ 
vii. 2, 235 We Ὁ 20. 222. 500 Σὰ Δ. vel) eo ΖΕ 
vil. 5; 235 11. 14, ae 207 πο... 
Walls Banton a) 1G gy ii. 20-32, Seu 20 Ki: 210... tke BS 
ΜΠ ΤΩ» τὸ 290, 222 ii. 38, 324, 347 δ ΤΉ ee RO 
ΜΙ 2 τ DLO E30 ii. 40, Sho 551 Xa ΘΗ ςτὸ σ᾽ 22 
ὙΠ; 20, : 376 pre πὸ Ὁ ΟΝ XI. 2) Ὁ OS 
ὙΠῚ|ν Os. ae es 441 il. 42... πὸ 282 ΧΙ]. 35,’ . τ ΞΕ 


Vili. 39-1x. 1-49, 476 lil. 22, . . . - 460 ΣΙΝ 3». εὐ Gon eae 


1X. 477 νεῶν, Col Mel ve KIN? 45.13 4 is ey Ue 
Ia COs eres 1 470 ἦν. Air hie ΣΕ ΟΣ Χύγο δ. wer eee 
Ie 2h helene se 7 TVs (6; Hist Vee bee ἀν 50}: XIV. ΞΕΙ; τ ego 
ΠΕ MMOS » Ihe Done tee TiveiOrn ae! (th Re DANA 32, US mario 115 
Bx aie ας win e207 iv. 18, 230, 471 XIV. 18, Ὁ | allemnse 
15435), te eR 234 Lee Osis 230, 471 Χῖν. 10, ον. Ἔτι ΠΗ 5 
Ἰχ 47... 8.) ZOO eZee 125 30) en he) ee XIV. 32, 114. 50 
ΠΣ i 1. eo! to eae IVa GOs) 18; ΠΣ: 2, AMES Gy Gg, 6 lye 
1X) 40.) το 200,264 130 KIV-1365 ue 235. Ξ 


Ἰχὲ δ. ee τς MTA 23 ἐπ ΤῊΝ Me τ gh ely κν, 2s (10) ee Syme aE 


INDEX OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES 


RUSS τ᾿ οὐ... 476 
ΒΕ 0 ἢνὸ τς. 476 
xVi.27,. . 16, 131 
Xvii. [I-xxiv. 53, 143, 


144 
xvii. 16, 225, 324 
Xvil. 35, - 476 


Xvii. 36, 206, 234, 476 
BMT 3757 ἡ τὺ 270 
ΧΟ 19. Ὁ τς Ζ22 
ΜΠ: ΤΟΣ τὸ ἢ τι 222 
VM Zi aw ba IR 
RVUs 20) fe ay oe e238 
ΧΙΣ Lop elena .225 
Mires Lier tlt gute eS T 
UGS a a Ὁ 159} 
ἘΠΕ ΤΕ 15, a) Ὁ 7.2 
abe Hie, ‘oy 1772 
DEEN 3 0) ie) ‘a ens 384 
XX. 4I=44;5 2. . 426 
ΕΣ τ 8 6 272 


ΡΟ Gael BLES 
EMIT AG Ne Nw we, 5 7522} 
Beri TO; τ is) προ 
Sod eye . 1οὃ 
th Beh ic παρὸ 
XXI1. 37, On SER) 

Xxii. re - 198, 206 
XXll. 44, 198, 206 


ICKL, (OAS ta oh! 295 
REMI GOs 1 1)2 
ΧΧΙ ον aa bo) 272 
mii TO, I” Zor 
AX TG; i, «207 
Xxill. 17, 206, 235 
Le SIDA ἐπα Ὁ ΝΣ 
Xxili. 34, 198, 206, 207 
xxii. 49, Ὁ . ὁ 201 
eed. 2, 5 πὸ ΤΠ 


BEKAV E350 Ue. ova) OS 
EKIV 45 «ὦ ὦ TOG 
ERERLVn| Os ᾿ς - 198 
eave ΤΣ, |, "198, 206 
TSANG Tete > 167 
KIVoT ἢ 167 
XXIV) 30, = = . (108 
XXIV. 40, 198, 206 


RAVES.) 472 
RXV AO 8 a 172 
XXiv. 51, . 198, 207 
SSN Sae τς 198 
JouHN: 

i, I, 255, 284, 285, 318, 
: 347, 375 
1, I-18, 254, 256, 259 
ΣΕ 
DRO en! sx xt 205 


ἘΠ 70 
1. 15, see 275 
16: 370 
i. 18, 167, 207, 241-- 


285 299; 344, 345, 
364, 375, 383, 384 


ΤΟΝ προ τὺ το 
i. 25, - 347 
1:20) 201, 202 
ib 27: : pear 
1: 5] 501, 202 
ily 28. 472 
80. 472 
1. 39-51, 472 
1, 40-52, 472 
ill. 5, 164 


νην ὦ 5d, ilu 


iii. 13, 198, 207, 275, 
eee 344, 384 
ili. τό, 259, 284 


ili. 18, ee... eos: 
ΠΌΤ ks, x EO 
Mig2Oyeei's |. τ 2O2 
Tyrie τὸς  8A8 
{π΄ 370 
LOM ene Tes 
IVeghQeecem ia). 0 


ves) a YAS) 
ἵν. 81, 116, 121, 1530 
᾿ς 106 


iv. Sate Meew ts eh ὭΣ 
Mee pe ic. Aa 
117, 130 
D7 150 
3»): Ὁ τι 200, 22 
γε, τ τον 200; 227 


v. 16, IIS, 235 
Ven lone - 460 
Wily Bo E22 
vi. 46, . 343, 384 
Vi. 47-58, . « 307 
vie Blind at Ne 47 

vi. 51-59, . 156 
Vis 52501. 476 
Vi. 52-71, . 476 
Vl. 53-72, » - 476 
v1. 69, 234, 376 
vii. 8, 207, 275 
Vii. 30, Ὁ 

Wills 0: a 
Vil. 37, Ξ 201 


VL τῶ ΠΑ πον ata 
Vil. 53-vii. ΤΙ, 195, 

198, 206, 236, 329 
viii. 44, 286-293, 347 
VALS Ay τ Aone 343 


Ville. ΒΟ ΠΤ 22Ὲ 
IX. τ π΄ 7: 


1X. 2s ieee 472 
1X: AGH ΤΣ "166, 343 
Re Sn cis! Caled ves ae 
eed A GN A Ria le 
X. 30, . . 429, 460 
Ke S3n hike +: Men LOO 
Re 30s, το G7 
Mis 225 ne: 132 
ENGL eee ΤΠ, 
XIE te eo, ΠΟ 
2G BED Gu ebh o . G IA 


497 


BEBO ek 716 
IS με τ tA 
ΧΙ]. 17,. . 344, 345 
Xl. 2I,. . 117, 130 
XI 29,. . . . 292 
MEA Ey. πᾷ 
RUIZO58 Fay a. 123 
ΧΙ ΘΝ. ee 470 
AUG BT Ds ees 76 


RUVAP TOs ae sk 370 
XIV. 14,. 207 
xiv. 16, 114, ‘118, 130, 

131 
πολ ΠΟ ne, ὁ ΟΣ 
Xvi. 19,. 115 
xvi. 23, 114, 115, 118, 


121, 130, 133, 135 

Xvi. 26, 114, 118, 130, 
131, 133 

surge OR ὁ το. ey es 
ἘΝ ΠΕΊΘΟΥ: 254, 457 
XV. 9. 114, 118, 123, 


130, 131 
XV1l. 15, 114, 118, 123, 
130, 131 
Xvii. 20, 114, 118, 123, 
130, 131 
AVI TG, 5) 2 sr τοι 
XViil. 32, 2 4 53} 


XVI. 37, - . . 344 
δος ΤΟΝ Ἐν Ua ble 015 
ἘΠΕ, | ce anes 
Seem TO, ἡ ae 
ἘΣ ΖΘ he we NW eG 

Dab PMD A a NL as 

MIRZA eh cine 233 
ΕΙΣ τ ὙΠ 
ΧΙ θη Aste omaha’, (TRB 
Kim 40, 95 4. 283 
MAR ATS YS ὁ μα 
REPENS ΡΠ 501 
XX. 20,. . . - 236 
ἘΝ CA es Ral Re Ὁ 

MK ΘΝ των an 304 
225 Billy Ὅν τ Ὁ ΤΕ Bye 
ἘΕΧΙ ΠΣ τς τὴς QS 
Xxl. 25, - 206, 235 


AcTs: 


TTERE CI x. va ts.) ig 472 
BERENS Me Nee 5 


ii. 14-36, . 374, 375 
πὸ ν ΡΣ 


ii. 130 
ages NSS) 
li. 30, . . 476, 379 
BAT ee, eh sere 
Fis Ny a ike Be ey ig 
M.'2; . 114,131, 134 
lil. 3, 114; 117, 130, 

131, 134 
111. 14... 5 6) eS 
111. τὸ; - 5 AGE 
1| 25), Gig ΠΤ 
Vas Onis 5 Ze 


ΧΙ]. 20, 
ΣΙ 20, 
fe Ser 
xiii. 18, 


200: 210. 2 
- 206, 210, 


I τ, 333 


275 


Pe 2O= 27a Nie 


355; 


CRITICAL ESSAYS 


XX. 32, 


XX. 35, 


XXII. |, 
XXil. 
ἌΧΗ 
XXil. 
XXii. 
XXlil. 
Xxiil. 
XXiv. 2, 
Xxiv. 3, 
XXiv. 
XXIV. 
XXIV. 
XXiv. 
XXIV. 
XXiv. 
XXVi. 
ἘΧΥΪ 22. 
χχνὶ. 23, - 
XXVlil. 12, . 
XXVIli. 29, . 
ROMANS: 
i. 1-3, 
1-26, . 


Of 


pete pete mete μῶν καρ μὰν bate μα μῶν ete 
Cs ee eh ok ΟὟ ane Θ᾽» ὦ 


" 306, 318 
207, 294-331, 


300, 


118, 
118, 


4, . + 355 367, 391 


» 384, 477 


306, 318 
297 


365, 374 
306, 315 


318, 324, 


"367, 391 


"362, 372 


" 340, 346, 3555 


361, 409 


1, 20, aes 473 
1, 29-31, . 140 
i cee 2 
ἡροῖς eR Arlee se Br gan 
il. ὌΝ ΣΌΣ ie Ae 
D5 353 
ii. 15, 303 
11. 16, 442 


Ἔν ἃ ᾿ b i i 386 


340 


ae : ; y ᾿ 418 
TM. 2,. 5) 59 es 


lil. 4, 340 
ili. 18, 316 
Iti. 25, 477 
It.) 20, ἐκ ν ΣΝ 
111. ΣΟ, ὃ. τς 355) 400 
imi. 20 ΗΝ, Ὁ 
AV. Ty Ὡς τς οι et 
iv. 4, . 152, 407, 403 
τ Se, scst utc) a ee ee 
Iv. 24, - 367 
v. 8, 366 
Ve IT, 386 
v. 14, δ᾿ ΡΥ ἐν 75 
τὺ τὸν: 
Willa 17; oe ee 
vii. 6, 210, 218 
Vii. 25, 340, 362 
vill. : < = Ὁ 
viii. ὃ, - wag 
vill. ΤΙ; 367 
viii. 20, 473 
viii. 21, : 473 
vill. 21-ix. pe 408 
Yulin AE 453 
viii. 23-ix. IT, 407 
viii. 24, ᾿ 453 
vill. 27-1x. 5, . 408 
viii. 28, 387, 393 
Vill. 32; ns) gow 
Ὑ111..35; 344 
Vio SR 344 
vill. 38-x. 3, 407 
Sa Ὁ Ὁ... 
ἡ δῷ 421 
Las 1-5, 333, 337; 339» 

401, 417, 420 
IX. 2, 340,344,353,421 
IX. 3, 349, 353,414, 421 
ix. 3- 


355) «iin ee 
.. 4s 337» 341, 385, 408, 


420, 421, 447 


nae 263, 277, 332-438 
Ix.6, .. 53% 340 
TOSMLCH τον on 393 
(ye KREG rea) ὅς 5.73 
ree ΑΝ 
eee 393 
IX. 22-24, . 393 
Ix. 25, : de SS 
ts 3a) 344, 426 


= 


INDEX OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES 


Le. τς DS. Roe 
KG yes | 341, 43 421 
BOs me 307; 370 
Χ. 12, 353, 355, 384 
ΜΕΤ ΠΡ τὸς τ 536 
x wigs 426 
x. 1S, Bea Ὁ AS 
Xi... 333s 339, 418 
Gi τ πο rey 
ale 2. τς 393 
xi.16, . 207 
xi. 13-16, 353 
2:1, 151.» 339 
ΣΙ AO 201 
ΟἿ. 25. 50. 5 0s 353 
zi 32, 1353, 385, 994 
xl. 36, 334, 341, 346, 
x 353) 354, 362 
xii. 18, ee 210 
xiii. 9, 230 
ἘΠῚ: 11; . 453 
xiv. ΤΟ, 207, 208, 442 
ἘΠῚ 21. 0. τ΄. ΤΕ 
Xiv. 27, 346, 362 
xv. 6, an 302 
XV. Ὁ, . 362 
XV. 24—xvi. 17, 408 
XV. 30-32, . 333 
ἈΚ Beh 316, 346 
KViloucosars ae τ 
Xvi. 16,. 316, 318 
XVI. 20, . 5) 2s) 
Xvi. 24,. 207 
ΧΥΪ. len 387 
Ailey Ay ed) (Ho 
EVI. 27, 3 1s = 374,987 
CoRINTHIANS: 
Me eel ot 5 EA UG 
ΚΑΤ es, oa ne 362 
is Chg 442 
1 12, 362 
22) 126 
1, 26, 349 
irs. | ces (0430 
Πρ 330 
iT cee 330 
li. 8,. 330 
li. 0, . 330 
li. 10, 330 
i. TL, 330 
il. 12, 330 
li. 16, 330 
111. 7, 352 
iii. 23, . + 319; 373, 446 
Ve 5) 442 
δ: 2. Ὁ - 323, 326 
vi. 2-6,. ΕΒ 
ΠΟ, lis 146, 224 
Vi. Io, - 146 
vi. 14, 367, 442 
Vi. TQ; - rege 
Vi. 20, 321 


to 


vii. 5, 


vii. 


vi 


Vii. 34, 


vl 


lii. 6, 


Py 27. 
ieee 


37 Brad 447; 148 


298 
201 
473 
473 
"319, 360, 373, 


ix: 5; 319 
iQ) - 208 
x. 18, 349 
pone 477 
ΧΙ. 2, 477 
ἘΕΟΘΗΝ τὸ e's) in) 917 
xi. 3, . 310, 373, 376 
es) 3, sy 860 
xi τό, 317 
Xin 17, 224 
ΧΙ. 22; 317 
ἘΠ: 3} 208 
xiii. 13, 146 
xiv. 18, 362 
xiv. 26, 146 
XV). |. 3217 
ΙΝ tity 367 
KV. 24,- 373 
KV. 27, - 373 
XV. 28, . 373 
XV. 47, 208 
RWS 75102 362 
CoriNnrutans: 

aie ai 
i. 3, - - 351, 359, 361 
1. Ὁ; 218, 473 
weeny 473 
i. 14, 442 
6 21) le gO 
i. 23, 473, 477 
1, 24, Te λοι 475 
U8 ols 477 
tee aes 473 
ii. I-17, 473 
ii. 2, 473 
li. 3-19, 473 
1: 10; | 473 
Mie Wi Σ 473 
il. 12, 474 
il. 13, 474 
ii. 14, 362 
ili. 14, 225 
iil. 15, 152, 226, 407, 

408 

IMG τος 152 
iv. 4, 344, 345, 360, 
ἢ 357, 395, 433, 445 
IW ig toes 376 
iv. 14, 367 
v. 5 346 
v. II, 316 
ν. 14, « « 474 
We 1.8 474 
v. 16, > + 349 
v. 18, 372, 448 
Vv. 19, 372, 384 


499 
Wile ἢ, 316 
δ] τς: 340 
viii. 13, 474 
Vili. 14, 474 
Vili. 16, = p02 
Ke WS). 340, 362 
Χ, 4, . 474 
“oe 474 
x. 17, 477 
ΑΙ: 477 
xi. 8, 474 
ΧΙ. 9, 474 
ΧΙ. 22, . B37 
ΧΙ. 31, - 341, 344, 345» 


355» 361, 362, 409, 


423, 424 
xil. 8, a oF τ 
xiil. 4, . 367 
xiii. 12, 477 
xiii. 13, 477 
xiii. 14, 477 

GALATIANS: 

iI, . . 319, 367, 447 
᾿ς By oi el τ ey ok AAS 


Aa toy eal tea pen AG 


1. 5, - « 346, 362; Ato 
1: 12; a 317 
il. 6, . 354 
11: 12. ΚΞΝ 
ii. 10, . 474 
ii. 20, 439, 474 
111. 20, - 333 
Iv. 4, 391 
lv. 5, 391 
Vv. 19-23, 146 
Vv. 22, 474 
W. 23, 474 
V. 25, 477 
vi. 477 
vi. 7, 384 
vi. 18, 346 
EPHESIANS: 
i. 3, - 35% 358, 359, 
361, 409, 447 
Me ue eee, a Wet Oe 
ry iS) 5 eel 
i. II, 354, 474 
In D5, 2 Bie 
180, 362 
i. 16-23, 373 
i. 17, 447 
i. 19, 367 
i. 20, 367 
i, 20-22 355 
Mees 22 
ii. 13, 344 
11. 14, 474 
ii. 15, - 474 
It. 20, 355, 362 
11. - 434 
iii. 6 ff., mod 
111. 9, 208, 309 


500 
111: Aan Ὁ 128, 151, ΤΊΣ 
ἘΠ 75) SA, 
111. 18, 474 
111. 19, Sy eee 
111: 21, 346, 362 
Iv. 5, + 259; 319, 303, 
373 
ἵν Ὁ 250; 910, 363, 
373 380 
iv. 9, 208, 298 
via 15. 298, 299 
aves.) an 870 
δι 5. - 319, 439, 447, 
452 
Vv. 20, 373 
τ 21; 316 
th, 3% 22 
vi. 5, 349 
PHILIPPIANS : 
Tew ς 310 
1: 2; 310 
Thy 34s 362 
ἵξκ6,."- 442 
re ite 442 
i. 16, 474 
i. 17, 474 
ii. 6-11, 368 
li. 7, « 475 
il. 8, 475 
il. Q-It, 318, 310, 378 
11 “παν OG 442 
iii 13, “475, 476 
lil. 14, 475, 476 
111. 20, Bo oe lige} 
Tig ie 442, 453 
ye Bh GUUS iS), 159 
iv. 7, 5 ce ou) BUS 
iv. 8, 146 
iv. 9, ena LO 
iv. 20, 346, 362 
iv. 21, oo. ayy 
iv. 22, : 477 
CoLossIANs: 
Seca 362 
IG) ὁ 128 
1h, 362 
i. 13, 369 
i. 15, 254 
i. 15-20, 319, 368, 369 
110} : ἘΣ , 266 
i. 10, 370 
1 20, 370 
Te its 475 
i. 22, peo, 2028 
1.27, . . 208, 447 
il. 2, - 208, 319, 447 
1.9, + 319, 369, 370 
lib τὸ; G6 oo 6 29ὺ 
iii. 8, 146 
Wil, Tis -: . 316 
lii. 16, 316 
ib M5 362 


1 


2 


I 


CRITICAL ESSAYS 


111: 22) π 316, 349 
iv. ἜΣ τ; 
ἵν ον - 477 
iv. 8-18, 408 
TG IBIS τὶς a ede 
THESSALONIANS: 
i. 1-8, 408 
1. 25 362, 475 
τος τυ} Ὲ 
1. LO; 367 
11: 10 362 
li. 5, 384 
11. Ὁ; eos ΓΕ 
ii. 7, 311, 475 
11: Ὁ 475 
11: 2: 475 
ii. (E3) 362 
Me isk ς eae BO, 
LVe TL, s 118, 124, 130 
iv. II, 477 
ἵν. tes 477 
iv. 12-17, . 477 
iv. 13-185, . 477 
iv. 14, 442 
v. 8,. 453 
Vv. 9; - τ 453 
Weis “118, 130 
Wer 23: ὃ 316 
THESSALONIANS : 
1: ehy 362 
i. 4, - 317 
1 τὰ: ὙΠ 129 
i. 12, . 439) 447, 453 
iy fi 118, 130 
11. ὃ, 440 
il. 10, 477 
ie tie 477 
li. 11-16, 477 
il. 12-17, 477 
11: 1. 225, 362 
ii. 14, 22 
111: 5) 316 
111. 16, 316 
ΤΙΜΟΤΗΥ: 
i. I, 447, 448 
ΔΎ les es, wreeeaRAAyT 
1 12; 306, 342 
ΤΠ, πο 1 γὼ 
i. 17, + 340, 346, 354, 
362, 374 
ii. 3-5, 447, 448 
τι. By 210: 2529) 57. 
443 
11:6; 326, 443 
111. Ὁ. 317, 318 
TWh TS, 219 
ili. 16, 208, 250, 284, 
8: 392, 447 
ἢν: τον a ὙΠ 715 
ie By . 373, 439, 447 
Vio 3. 4s ses 
vi. 13-16, . 447 


Vie TALE 440 
vi. 14-16, 443 
vi. 14-26, 441 
vi. 15, 442 
vi. 16, "346, 362 
vi. 21, 477 
vi. 22, 477 
2 TimorHy 
te Dake 448 
1. 8; . 9 445 
1.9, . 277, 448 
Ilo, ᾿ς 
11. ὃ, 326 
li. 22, 136 
Ii: Ὁ... 7. eet 
iv.I, ς 439, 440, 448 
iv. 8, A a 
ἵν: Τὸ; | : 
ἵν. 18. - 349, 346, ae 
TITUs: 
TAO ae . 448 
i. 1-4, - 448 
i. 3, - . 448 
i. 4, - 448, 453 
Lgl a 308) 
ii Te 
ms τον ἐς π᾿". 
i ταν ήδελο δ, 449; 450 
1 ἀν 10. 392.) 49» 
As 412, 439-457 
li. 14, 443, 440 
il. 9. . 448 
iil. 4, - 456 
iil. 4-6, 373> 448 
PHILEMON 
Teens 362 
1; 475 
112: 475 
1.18, 475 
i. 19, 475 
i. 19-22, 475 
i. 20-23, 475 
1.23, « 475 
i. 24, 475 
1. 25, . 475 
HEBREWS: 
i. I, e 2 «© 475 
1-. 2) . 453) 475 
13; - 360, 384 
i. 6, 441, 442 
etsy . . 304 
£0, (ee 
lie 75 ct eee 
ii. 0, -- 278, 929; 520) 
Tuleh el A oe «΄.- 
ii. 9, 475 
111. 10, 475 
iv. 4, 477 
ν. 477 
vil. I, one τ: 
vil. 20, δ 475 
ὙΠ 2 πο Ξ 475 


INDEX OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES 


ἈΠ ΣΟ". LOA, TOO 
LaeZON eS tie .- 455 
ΣΡ ΤΡ ret 290), 201 
SS OG να 47.0 
ΞΡ Ὁ 5250; 47.0 
ΧΙ]. 20, 230 
ΣΧ Ι. 22, τ ΤΟ Zhe 
xii. 23, 2. 476 
ΧΙ]. 20, Ὁ 316 
xili. 21, 346, 363 
JAMEs: 
i. 5, ὙΠ ae 
1 τ: Ἢ Ὥ7 5. 21 
iii. ὃ, : 2 166 
iil. 9, 6 6 τὸ 310 
v.9,. - 5 2ΟΤ 
1 PETER 
13, + + 351, 35% 362 
ἐδ ο. δ πὶ = im, 453 
TS. |e 297, 302 
119, - 287, 302 
ii. 7,. ς - 476 
πη, Ὅς ὦ oo GS 
Ile 15 - 120; 208; Ἴτῦ; 
δ᾿ 410 
iii. 16, . 476 
111. 20), - 210, 218 
In Ty) jet .1.9 
Iv. 11; . 346, 355, 363, 
410 
Viens 315 
ΤΠ: 3246 
2 PETER: 
1.1, . « 364, 439, 454 
A ΤΟΝ se ee WARO 
11: Ὁ; - 446 
ii. ΤΟ, oe 440 
11: 13; 275, 311 
ΠΠΠ ΤΟ, - “τοῦ 
ΠῚ 12: ἡ ae AAZ 
BTS, s 346, 363 
1 JOHN: 
Petes ats + 102 
110 οι. 324 
1 τὸ τ an 470 
τ τ» 70 
ἘΠ ΡΝ τὸς, 206,224 
i275) ΟΝ οτος 222, 


ii. 28, BG 527 
Hl PAYG lis sh 529 
itis Ts, oy a ade 1320 
ΠΡΟ ἡ τ 11} 
ἽΝ cl ν 170 
NE Ohi to old 284 
ἵν. 11-|7, oe 262 
ὙΠ 6b 376 
ὙΠ. δα 
V: 7)~- = 165, 207, 304, 
307, 314, 329-331, 
458-463 
v. 8, 165, 207, 320- 
331 
ΧΟ ὙΠ; 11) 11, 
E21, 126, 130, 132, 
134 
Vv. 20, 364, 457 
2 JOHN: 
1. ie 118, 130 
1.7, + 345 
3 JOHN: 
1.14, - : 477 
115, - : 477 
JUDE: 
i. 4, . 454 
I Gy an ete 2, 100 
1 25, 71; 208, 346, 
448 
REVELATION: 
i. 4, + - = 303 
1: ἢν ὸ - 200 
1.6, . . « 346, 363 
16 Gene : . 346 
1 δὴ ς en 20 285 
Ohare 5 BIG 215 
iene 210, 2185 
nls Sh - 210, 218 
THO} 6 oa 6 ΤΟΙ 
ii. 20, 590 ioe ue 
ii. 24, a Oo 215 
NEE on a 770 
11 ey 40. oc. ay GAS 
Mb) Mob, 6 KS 
iii. 4, Mieke LOA! 
ils; 20, Petree) art 2Oe 
lv. 3 . .Φ ΓΙ . 224 
ἵν. δ, ...... 383 


ΒΟΙ 
iv. II, 409 
Vv. 5; 344 
Ves Osus 164 
v. 10, 210, 218 
γε 12; 409 
Wek) 363 
v. 14, 210, 218 
vi. II, wile TD 

Vii. 10, 5102 
ὙΠ, ts - 346 
vil. 15, - 164 
ἴχ. 4, Ἢ 122 
Σὸν Τῇ, 5 ae 
xl. ς - 477 
ΧΙ. 3, + 477 
ΧΙ. ὃ, 5) RAG) 
ἈΠΟ ii 164, 166 
Sob 12: { 164 
ΧΙ. 15, 477 
xi. 17, 383 
xi. 19, 283 
xil. 477 
xii. 4, 201 
xii. 18, 477 
Sellen 477 
ἘΠῚ Te 477 
ΧΙ ΤΑ ne . 164 
XV. 3, . 210, 218, 354 
ΣΧ τσ eh 210) 218; 555 
Xvii. I, : . ἼΘΙ 
RVI «) Leena 
XVli. 9, f 476 
Rvilleel Oo we 476 
XVI LAs 164 
XVI, LON sn 21, 518 
Vile 7 sa τ 525 
KVM 2) | 20, 219 
Xvill.9, . 164, 166 
ΧΥΠ sas - 164 
xviii. 16, 476 
KVL 7 Ὁ 476 
Xviii. 22, . 22 

ΣΙΣ ΟΣ ΤΡ Γ22 8 
ΙΧ ἀν τ LOO 750 
Oba τς lig τοῦ 
weak hg Ὁ ὦ 164 
> Sable VS | Te 208 
Xl IG, 3) - 239 


if int i 


Mh ti 
Ἰὰ ἢ, ee 


1 eee 


I NTT Eh i λα ng re RG 0, 


ne 


ney! 


; ae " ἣν ne 
as eM a ᾿ 


= Ἧ 
ἃ, 
ἢ 1? 
i i 
᾿ i 
, ὃ 
ΤΕΥ" 3 
᾿ 
ue 
Se Ϊ 
7 
ΠΗ 
εὦ Fe 
_ 
i » 
᾿ 
xr 


TO 


AT 
LN ah 
ἡ 17 ΠῚ ne 
a ane Mi mh 


j a a { 

| wei 

PON AE ae 
δῆ 


Ι ha 

Wey 
in ἂν i 
Lim 


Γ᾿ 


». . 7 ω bs Wwe ' ft λ ἢ Ἶ 
ἐν ᾿ Peas i: Fl ᾿ εἾ : 
ane rye ῥ Pants + ἣν 
i My at hes ers rea 
Ὶ rey eet ἣ 
cin i CF Sap ϑ : 5 
Fab, 1 2 f ἢ ͵ ῃ 
τὴν iy ais tt εξ i 
Reich eyes! ἌΡ ' ἡ Oak ; 
Fane in . . - 
ete ia Fe : 
᾿ te hens , 
; deg ies ᾿ τ δ fiend 44} : 4 7 
1 Ph, Tht. fore Η Νὴ i ᾿ ᾿ 
i Cathay 
ΡΝ Orbe seg 
BT ater 


eet ate’ ἢ 
ἤιει ξεῖν wt ἢ 
δἰ κέφι ‘ 
! 
Ph pee i ἢ 
ae ' ἢ 
δρσν αν ἦν t . ' i ἢ 
ἡ] 
crea ‘ ‘ 
hemes ΐ 
“ἢ 


Cer kas 


ΤᾺ 


ρόδες og χοὸς 


baie tt Le et eo 
Ani 9 


eres 


ΡΝ 
oe : 


asian 


Pest eyes ge, 
ἑ εὐ ἐφ Toa wel 


Pirate: κο σον 


ΣΝ ΤῸΝ 
crea 


Why resent οὖν 
Dee se ace! 


ὁ πὸ μιν 
ea jutwae ον ge 

re Usk eeas 
vndpedpibcenbe 


δὰ δὰ raping 
iene 


VN Te, 


Prete 


PU ete Eee 
rrr 


τὰν 


ΡΝ 


Mel eish he 
tea 


fe πὸ τε ke 
Ribas rare peter eT ied they 
ttt erie 


PCM ees s δες pephew 
opeectecen oF 


ΜΟῚ 


ΠΝ 
πϑανονεν 


Ἔν ἀνα τ τ στ ον μὰ 


τοῦ ΤῊΝ 
παρε τὰν 
Salad teeter 

Seren Bet Shy -aepntepaele 

σορῷ diets tana Serie ee at 

Mere κα σὰ κατ πονεῖ 

ἢ εἶς 


ΤῊΝ 


res eae vane 
Nedotes τῶν, ὁ 
cake renee 


ἢ 
ταν 


ee Φοουτν τινε νον 
ΣΉ ΜῊΝ 


eee Ere 


rhe, 


πονοῦν 
αν Teena tee: 
rer a 
AWS be δέ ρα oh san any bt eres 
9 face ΤῊΝ sehen pach κα μσεμοι, 
δ τὸ ἐς δ να σαν ἡ of 
τα eb δῶκα κασῴμα al pies τὰ 
Bs burt ες δοροῖν rarer 
bibdate tert eae hoy 
Pe μὰ Hain weg pach letae κώφῳ φῶς ωρο εν te 
ον whee 


Penk φῷ sane 


ἣν οὗλοι, 
δα δὴ νῷ υἱφοονος, 
Seer 


5. δον τον 


κακὸ κε νύ κῶν 


ὀγός 
arte tee 


aren 
PNAC He Nisa nang 


ἀνὰ Hem δὴ ee erietict 
bi bole daiaend pet SPM 


ery rhs 


δέν τα κὰ τὰ 
Pian reese 
“ὁ ον eet 
ΡΥ ΩΝ 
Hyd badder eT φῶ οἱ pert 

Maren αὐ κίφ νων 
κὸ τος 


Ἔδει δὰ εν, 
ΠΥ ἫΝ 
WN ELAS wk πὰς 


δἰκδσώ τως ρον se 

Shrew ἐσσι ὃς 

oars 

LSPU σῷ κωρι κω ύγεγα 
i: 


SATA seuitekal, 
UOerdbe Cid 

_— 

Werte 


Tere 
ΑΝ κανῷ Lt ae 


+ WeW enc are 
Parerern 
oak, 


ΗΝ 
ΣΤᾺΣ Fieve gs 


ποσὰ eat ὡς 
ταρσῶν 
περε κν τὰ κι ey 


WH wh ak 
er rrenein 


Sere ra 
θα τὰ He etal, 


PUREED τος 
Peibhoa τῷ νὰ σι 

τα χργφνο ραν es te 
MES Semen κοι 


. 
AM ϑΑφιν σιν ek ἐν nem, 


rer 

Carr Pe aey 

δρῶν κακὰ 
on 


WN ety me. 


"ἃς 
tw 


oe a, ee 


Mea Ne reware 
ae 


Maen tees pes Ἢ 
πρ Αανκλ δι ως i, 
lontvb tess cymes δε 
FO ἀξ σώσουν κος ΡΟ ROR a Ὁ... Ὰ > 
δτκράνῳ prorated eluate ὁ ρεεςυψ οι intensaene 5 
τ να πον rttresycany 5 W “ὦ σῷ εοος πων ἐς Hines 7 Ἢ 
ἈΣΟΟΣ Ἀπ λδλιναονν τς tareae es τυνωςς κεστὸν 4 
sue he τ κόφινον sce ; ᾿ Ἢ 
we (retest igs οὐ 
ema εν τὰ “ASP παν αν λιν 
ἀνα Unies συ | ᾿ 
Parenrareanay 
νῶν 
4 
MPU σὰ ng, 
ΡΝ 


hme ak Bhs 
ρα NUT ἐς hogs 
oer 


NaN e Caney 
ΟΝ 


ἐν πῷ δὰ γῳ 
Paes ve 


tite ta tee 
Pore 


Ma 
hen τας 


δὰ κεν 
τἀ μὰ κωγωνν 

RAH ἐν σῷ φως 
ἈΝ τῷ they τως ah mg 
“WS6seeuen. 0 864 


